
Microsoft, Google, Facebook Back Apple in Blocked Phone Case - sbuk
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-02-25/microsoft-says-it-will-file-an-amicus-brief-to-support-apple
======
mythz
From recent polls most people think this debate is about:

"Should Apple be forced to give the Terrorist's phone data to the FBI"

When what it's really about:

"Should the FBI be able to compel technology companies to use their resources
against their own and their Customers right to Security."

In order for the public to be properly informed about what's really at stake
this case needs to be about the "Technology Industry vs FBI", not what the US
Govt is trying to set the narrative to: "Apple protecting Terrorism". With
this announcement this brings us to:

    
    
      - Apple
      - Twitter
      - Yahoo
      - Facebook / WhatsApp
      - Microsoft
      - Google (Sundar lukewarm)
    

Big technology companies with large user bases that's notably missing:

    
    
      - Amazon
      - Linked In

~~~
timr
_" From recent polls most people think this debate is about..."_

...or maybe people understand the debate, and they simply disagree with _your
opinion_ on the matter.

For example, even as phrased in the second form, my answer is _" yes,
sometimes"_, with an additional _" there is no such thing as a 'customer's
right to security'"_, added for good measure.

Even if I believed there were an absolute "right" to security, I don't think
it's Apple's job to enforce it.

~~~
studentrob
The thing is, if privacy advocates lose _this_ fight, we have a greater chance
of losing the next one.

I agree it should be the user's job and not Apple's to enforce security,
however I also think that is something that we can focus on later. We can both
support Apple now in this fight against government overreach _and_ put
pressure on them later to make their phone securable by the user. Those two
ideas are not mutually exclusive, despite appearing to be both pro Apple and
anti-Apple.

~~~
timr
_" The thing is, if privacy advocates lose this fight, we have a greater
chance of losing the next one."_

I don't think that's true, but even if I'm wrong, you could say that about
_any_ skirmish in the privacy debate. Every legal case sets some precedent
that affects the next one.

Also, I don't agree that this is government overreach. This case seems about
as clear-cut an example of a "good" investigatory behavior as we're likely to
see. If you can't get behind the idea of compromising privacy when there's a
valid warrant, in the case of a _known mass murderer_ with probable ties to
international terrorist groups, well...you've set an exceptionally high bar.
I'm a reasonable person, I see your position, and I disagree with you on the
merits of your argument.

~~~
studentrob
>> _" The thing is, if privacy advocates lose this fight, we have a greater
chance of losing the next one."_

> you could say that about any skirmish in the privacy debate. Every legal
> case sets some precedent that affects the next one.

Yes and no. The role of the judiciary is to interpret and implement the law.
They are not supposed to create law. That is the job of Congress.

This case is _so unprecedented_ that there's a chance the precedent here will
effectively create a law. It will come down to a matter of interpretation by
the justices. If they rule against Apple, the message is, _" This is covered
by the AWA, and the AWA was intended to compel companies to weaken their
products' security"_. In that case, many of us in the public feel that the
justices will have unfairly created a new law.

If they rule for Apple, the message is, _" This is an undue burden being
forced upon Apple. That is not the intention of the AWA. If you want them to
comply, go to Congress and ask for a law"_

Obama was a lawyer, he knows this, and in light of the public's disapproval of
mass surveillance, he chose the path (the AWA) that is most likely to get him
what he wants, which is to grant law enforcement access to all iPhones. The
public currently will not re-elect congressmen and women who push through new
surveillance laws.

P.S. I like your site vayable.com

~~~
rtpg
>This case is so unprecedented that there's a chance the precedent here will
effectively create a law.

This case is actually super with precedent, if you ignore the digital nature
of things. Apple has keys to a safe (digital signage key for iOS updates), FBI
has warrant to search safe, court orders keys to safe. Fourth amendment
doesn't apply because Apple can't incriminate themselves by giving signage
keys.

There is the whole "asking Apple to write the OS changes and sign it", instead
of just "Asking Apple for the signing keys." I would call this a compromise
ruling to avoid having Apple have to give the actual for real skeleton key.

Asking a judge to not force Apple to surrender the digital signage keys
requires more subtle arguments about burden. Asking for any ruling on
encryption itself is asking a court to legislate from the bench

~~~
parenthephobia
The precedent you reference doesn't really apply because, as you say, the FBI
isn't actually asking for the signing keys.

The big difference between what's being asked and the signing keys is that
Apple already have the signing keys. There is certainly plenty of precedent
for a court to ask Apple to produce something they already have, but less
precedent for a court to ask Apple to make something that doesn't exist yet.

In the analogy, the FBI doesn't have a warrant to "search the safe". What is
protected by the signing keys is the ability to distribute iOS updates, but
the court wants the data on the phone, which is protected by a different key
Apple don't have.

A more correct non-IT analogy is to imagine that the safe has two locks: one
pickable, the other unpickable. Apple don't have a matching key for either,
but knows how to cut a key for the unpickable one. The FBI has asked Apple to
set up a key-cutting facility, _definitely only for use on this one occasion_
, so they can make a key for the unpickable lock.

------
obrero
Harry Shearer did an excellent mini-series three years ago called "Nixon's the
One". It's just a verbatim reenactment of conversations from Nixon's tapes (
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f9HtoWea72A&list=RDf9HtoWea7...](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f9HtoWea72A&list=RDf9HtoWea72A)
).

There is more than one scene where Nixon talks about how he wants to get rid
of J. Edgar Hoover but can't. In another the Attorney General calls FBI agents
"the Gestapo".

It reminded me of another tape - a phone conversation LBJ recorded of him
talking to another Attorney General - Robert Kennedy. Kennedy talks about how
his subordinate, Hoover, was not only not taking orders from him, but was
having agents monitoring, writing reports and spreading disinformation about
him (
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aVHnkIPGC6M](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aVHnkIPGC6M)
).

Forget the FBI monitoring non-violent political figures like Martin Luther
King Jr., or Vietnam peace groups - presidents and their attorney generals
began to fear their power.

The Church committee was supposed to fix this, but it was stonewalled in many
ways, and by the 1980s we saw the FBI revive these political witchhunts again
against groups like CISPES, and even groups run by Catholic nuns concerned
about the rapes and killings of Catholic nuns in Central America.

------
chishaku
What's the worst that could happen for any of these companies or their senior
executives if they refuse to cooperate?

Most corporate criminal penalties we hear about these days have become minor
costs of doing business. And it's not like the olden days where senior execs
often ended up in jail for corporate wrongdoing.[0]

The largest monetary criminal penalty I could find after a quick search was
the 2013 settlement between JP Morgan and the Justice Department for $13
billion.[1] That's about 25% of Apple's net income last year, hardly a death
sentence.

EDIT: I am not a lawyer so I'd appreciate any insight on this question.

[0]: [http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/20/business/in-corporate-
crim...](http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/20/business/in-corporate-crimes-
individual-accountability-is-elusive.html)

[1]: [http://blogs.wsj.com/moneybeat/2014/06/23/a-list-of-the-
bigg...](http://blogs.wsj.com/moneybeat/2014/06/23/a-list-of-the-biggest-bank-
settlements/)

~~~
callmeed
Why do you assume the penalty would only be monetary?

~~~
odbol_
Who would they throw in jail? Tim Cook? Continuing on down the line until
Apple has 0 employees?

~~~
regecks
At some point Apple will act to protect their own employees...

~~~
danieldk
I am not sure how realistic this is, but couldn't they move relevant parts of
their business overseas? E.g., hardware and software development still happens
in the US, but updates are vetted and signed by a separate entity in a
privacy-friendly country?

The US could block iPhone sales, though I think the probability of that
happening is extremely low, since it would have a major economic impact.

------
tintor
Trump will now have to boycott Apple, Google, FB and Microsoft.

~~~
potatolicious
Is it even possible to tweet without touching products from any of the above
companies?

I guess Trump will have to buy one of the discontinued BB10 devices...

~~~
danieldk
Hey, our prime minister (Mark Rutte) still uses a Nokia from the pre-
smartphone age.

------
Theodores
The tech industry seems to be a bit like Hollywood in how it supports the
military industrial complex - the pendulum swings between 'pro-
totalitarianism' (where everyone signs up the the Patriot Act of the day
without hesitation) and something more 'pro-democratic' (when a Snowden type
situation comes along and freedom stuff gains traction).

In a way we are lucky that money talks in the U.S.A., it allows for this
dynamic. If too much 'totalitarianism' hurts the bottom line then things get
pushed back a bit and the noose loosens a bit. All the government needs is
another big polarizing incident and I am sure Microsoft will be back doing as
much of the government's dirty work as possible.

~~~
studentrob
> In a way we are lucky that money talks in the U.S.A.

Money talks, but votes are king. When we collectively vote a politician out of
office, his or her money dries up. In a way, votes are made more powerful by
money.

Check out This American Life's episode on "Take the Money and Run for Office"
[1]

Dick Durbin: I think most Americans would be shocked-- not surprised, but
shocked-- if they knew how much time a United States senator spends raising
money. And how much time we spend talking about raising money, and thinking
about raising money, and planning to raise money. And, you know, going off on
little retreats and conjuring up new ideas on how to raise money. [2]

...

Barney Frank: If the voters have a position, the votes will kick money's rear
end any time. I've never met a politician-- I've been in the legislative
bodies for 40 years now-- who, choosing between a significant opinion in his
or her district and a number of campaign contributors, doesn't go with the
district. [2]

[1] [http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-
archives/episode/461/t...](http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-
archives/episode/461/take-the-money-and-run-for-office) [2]
[http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-
archives/episode/461/t...](http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-
archives/episode/461/transcript)

------
multinglets
So there's an encrypted blob. The way you input a password has nothing to do
with that blob or the encryption that was used to create it.

The argument that this would be some kind of cryptographic back door seems a
little specious to me, and I'm usually the biggest edgelord imaginable when it
comes to decrying government surveillance.

If we were talking about a safe somewhere, and the government asked the safe
manufacturer to create a physical device that makes it easier to open existing
safes, that would not seem reasonable to me, but it also would be ludicrous to
claim that represents a "back door." If that's a back door, then the back door
already existed.

So in Apple's case, the government says "we need the data out of this device"
and that's apparently a solvable problem. Can someone please remind me why
it's so cut and dry for Apple to just say "no" and that's supposed to be OK?

~~~
dapearce
1) It's a backdoor because it's software, not a physical device like your
example. They are not asking them to make a robot finger to push the buttons.
It's not only more trivial to unlock the device, it's significantly more
likely the software is copied and leaked into malicious hands.

2) The outrage, in my opinion, is much more about your exact example -- that
Apple is being compelled to develop this software themselves. That they are
being legally required to weaken the value of their own product.

~~~
multinglets
> 1) It's a backdoor because it's software, not a physical device like your
> example. They are not asking them to make a robot finger to push the
> buttons. It's not only more trivial to unlock the device, it's significantly
> more likely the software is copied and leaked into malicious hands.

If I wanted to get into my neighbors house, and I had some way to compel a
construction crew to come install a new door in that house so I can walk
through it, that would not mean _houses now have back doors_. That would be a
very disingenuous way of putting it.

"But what if the software is copied" is the only argument that holds any
weight, and I don't find it very convincing. If the "copyability" of sensitive
software/data is such a huge concern, then we should probably start asking how
we intend to survive as a species.

> 2) The outrage, in my opinion, is much more about your exact example -- that
> Apple is being compelled to develop this software themselves. That they are
> being legally required to weaken the value of their own product.

Perhaps, but that's not what Tim Cook is saying.

~~~
dapearce
Did you read their motion?[1] It is very much part of their argument. It sets
a precedent that not only will other US courts compel them to unlock devices,
but other countries will as well. Even if you trust the US government to not
use the software maliciously, do you trust other governments?

1)
[https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/2722199-5-15-MJ-0045...](https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/2722199-5-15-MJ-00451-SP-
USA-v-Black-Lexus-IS300.html)

~~~
pbhjpbhj
What's stopping other governments from compelling then to unlock phones now,
given they've effectively said they can.

What's stopping rogue employees from selling that capability - is Apple
Computer's internal security good enough to see off espionage by nation
states?

~~~
isleyaardvark
They've already asked and Apple has had a strong bargaining position.

"Beijing last year backed off on some proposals that would have required
foreign companies to provide encryption keys for devices sold in the country
after facing pressure from foreign trade groups."

[http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/21/technology/apple-sees-
valu...](http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/21/technology/apple-sees-value-in-
privacy-vow.html?mwrsm=Twitter&_r=1)

If Apple were to allow this for the US government other governments will want
the same.

------
Johnny555
Google has been awfully silent about the whole thing, how secure are Android
phones (Nexus phones in particular) against a similar attack?

I'm wondering if they are so easy to crack that this hasn't been a problem for
Google. Either that, or their phones are just as secure as iPhones, and they
caved to FBI demands immediately.

~~~
danieldk
I found this surprising as well. There is some information in this article:

[https://itsecuritything.com/google-nexus-6p-security-
teardow...](https://itsecuritything.com/google-nexus-6p-security-teardown/)

To be honest, I think for non-Nexus phones, the situation is pretty bad. Even
if a device vendor would not cooperate, security updates are so glacial (if
they happen at all) that a state actor probably won't have much trouble
finding attack vectors.

(I am pretty frustrated by the lack of updates for my Moto X. Motorola used to
be pretty good at is. Now I have Marshmallow, but they didn't roll out any
security updates beyond November. It seems that they just want to tick off the
Marshmallow box and that's it.)

------
bobmoretti
One thing that I can't help thinking about in all of this... would Apple have
contested this case had the Snowden leaks never occurred?

~~~
studentrob
Yes. But it wouldn't have been in the public sphere. It would have happened
behind closed doors like what happened to Yahoo in 2008 (which we didn't find
out about until 2014). And in the secret court, my guess is Apple loses. Law
enforcement would get what it wants because privacy advocates only seem to
exist in the public.

Although many are saying this will be decided in court, the public opinion
matters a lot here. We sway action in government through our votes. Thankfully
this time we have a say in the matter.

------
karmacondon
I have a question for the lawyers on HN. Why doesn't the judge in the case
hold Apple in contempt of court until they modify the OS, in the same way they
would hold a reporter in contempt until they revealed a source?

In both cases, you have a third party who is being compelled to assist an
investigation against their will. My only guess is that there is a precedent
set for reporters, but not for computer programmers.

~~~
icebraining
IANAL, that said, at the end of the order, it says

 _" To the extent that Apple believes that compliance with this Order would be
unreasonably burdensome, it may make application to this Court for relief
within five business days of receipt of the Order."_

Since Apple has presented such an application, they are now supposed to return
to court next month to argue their position.

~~~
jat850
I think that doesn't speak to the expansiveness of Apple's response. It's my
understanding that the burden to undertake this effort being excessive is only
one of their grounds for argument. They are additionally arguing that it
violates free speech principles, and also that the request goes beyond their
initial compliance efforts to aid in the investigation to fringing on
violating Fifth Amendment principles by asking them to go above and beyond the
simple compliance.

To my untrained eyes, they're basically saying that instead of having a key
and being asked to turn over the key, and doing so - they're being asked to
devote efforts to create an entirely new key that would unlock many or all
doors. Which could then be used in many other unrelated "need to open the
door" situations.

------
widforss
How far could the FBI use this case as a precedent if it goes through? Could
they demand to get stuff signed and put on Canonicals repos? Could they demand
to get a MS-signed EFI?

Or could this case just be used as a precedent in cases that clearly only
involved one (1) specific device?

~~~
studentrob
Nobody knows. That would be for the unelected judge to decide, which is what
makes this all so scary.

------
SEJeff
Much to the FBI's chagrin, the Whitehouse agrees with Apple, which is a great
sign that someone in this country is sane:

[http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/11/us/politics/obama-wont-
see...](http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/11/us/politics/obama-wont-seek-access-
to-encrypted-user-data.html)

~~~
studentrob
I don't think that's accurate to say. The White House Press Secretary Josh
Earnest said in his briefing a day or two ago that the administration backs
Comey's efforts. US attorney general Loretta Lynch said she backs Comey too.
Obama is the only one who hasn't made a public statement about this issue.

Chain of command, by the way, is Obama > Lynch > Comey. They're certainly in
communication and agreement about this issue.

You might think Obama would feel differently given his rebuke of China last
year for attempting to set the same kind of precedent. But no, he fails to see
the similarity. It's scary. The highest ranking official who understands this
issue is Ted Lieu.

~~~
Laaw
> The highest ranking official who understands this issue is Ted Lieu.

You mean the highest ranking official who agrees with us. It's _easy_ to see
how, if you trust the US judicial system, you'd be okay with this. If you
think warrants are only given in valid and justified situations, this wouldn't
bother you, because this'd only be used for "good".

We know better, but that's probably not the position the head of one of the
branches of government (and a scholar of the highest law of the judicial
branch, even) finds himself in. Obama probably very much trusts the US justice
system.

~~~
studentrob
> You mean the highest ranking official who agrees with us

Yup that's what I meant.

> Obama probably very much trusts the US justice system

Hmm, Obama certainly wants Apple to comply here. However, he has no power to
sway the justices.

Obama didn't want to go to congress for a new law surrounding this issue, and
seems to have directed Comey to use the AWA. Obama hasn't said why he didn't
go to congress. It _seems_ like he wants to set precedent while acting like
it's only for this one phone. Pretty sneaky if that's the case.

Personally I trust our right to express our views both in speech and through
our votes. I trust that elected officials can represent those of us who voted
and wish to be represented. The problem is we have not yet elected enough
people who understand computers. And, that's not entirely our fault. It's a
new field and there are not many people with exposure to it who can represent
our views.

------
chrisdotcode
I (, in a non facetious manner) honestly don't get this. Aren't all of the
above listed giants the ones that are going out of their way to track, spam
and use our personal lives as objects of advertisement in the first place?

How or why are they petitioning for the government to not be able to do what
they're already doing? Isn't that completely ironic? Is this a case of _" it's
okay if /WE/ steal your data, but we don't want to government too (so that
only we have total access to it)"_?

Someone more enlightened than me, please help me out.

~~~
adventured
It's quite simple.

Google, Facebook, Microsoft, Apple, et al. do not have the power to arrest
you, and never will. They can't find out you said or did something in the past
and put you in a gulag for it 10 or 20 years from now when you're considered a
political enemy of the state.

It's the critical difference between economic and political power. Google has
no guns, much less the all-powerful legal authority - and then some -
possessed by the government.

Microsoft can sell you software. Amazon can sell you a blender or ebook. Apple
wants to sell you a phone. The US Government can kill you, destroy your life,
put you on a no-fly list, proclaim you a terrorist to be constantly surveilled
to the highest degree, punish you for speaking out, sic the IRS on you,
blackmail you by tracking every single thing you do digitally without any
consequences to themselves and then use it against you at their convenience or
for their benefit (Google execs would go to prison for that), and dozens of
other things using their countless agencies (and if you happen to be a leaker
or journalist, the context is that much more amplified). And that's just what
they can do to you today, the fascism in America is blatantly going to keep
getting worse, they keep reaching for more and more power. Tomorrow, the
things you do today, will be held against you. There isn't an example of a
fascist system in which that hasn't been the case.

Google et al. are the absolute least of your worries. The free market profit
motive is predictable and functions at its most efficient under systems of
high degrees of freedom (thus free market). Increasing political power of the
sort going on in the US however is always violent and always trends toward an
ultimate restriction of liberty. One need understand only the very basics of
history to grasp that.

A quick look at what governments have done over just the last 200 years,
versus what corporations have done, tells you everything you need to know. It
isn't a close comparison. Show me one modern big corporation like Google that
has done the kind of evil things that eg Mugabe in Zimbabwe has done for
example - there's one simple example, and hardly the worst I could reference
(how about Pol Pot?), and it demonstrates how clearly absurd it is to be
frightened by the 'big bad corporations.' The notion we need to be afraid of
corporations is almost entirely a myth, typically pushed by people that then
turn an intentional blind eye to the endless murder, war and abuse by
governments. It's power-seeking governments you should be absolutely terrified
of.

------
GnarfGnarf
The whole Apple/FBI fracas is about promoting smartphones as the centre of our
universe: the confluence of medical, financial, and all other personal
information. If Apple can convince us that smartphones are secure, there are
lucrative opportunities for smartphone technology to become ubiquitous and
pervasive in our lives.

Unfortunately, it will always be necessary for law enforcement to have access
to bad guys' stuff. The Fourth Amendment guarantees your privacy, but police
can break down your door and seize your financial and medical records if they
have reasonable grounds to suspect you. Why should your smartphone be
different?

The smartphone is not an inalienable right. We are confusing convenience with
fundamental rights; technology with entitlement.

If you don't trust your smartphone to be impregnable, then guess what? Don't
put your medical & financial info on your smartphone. There was an epoch when
we actually did banking & medicine without smartphones.

Apple, unlock the terrorist's iPhone, and resign yourself to a reduction in
sales.

~~~
dmix
> The Fourth Amendment guarantees your privacy, but police can break down your
> door and seize your financial and medical records if they have reasonable
> grounds to suspect you. Why should your smartphone be different?

This is a false dichotomy. Simply because technology creates a situation where
governments can't access a users data without the user consent. Apple's
technology hadn't reached this point in this case (aka end-to-end encryption),
which is why we're even having this conversation but we've arguably passed
that point as an industry where that will be the future legal environment.

It's entirely plausible Apple could create an iPhone that they can't unlock,
or iMessages they can't read. So then it's no longer about coercing middlemen
but the US gov vs user consent. Outside of self-incrimination this changes the
legal question to be about unlocking every persons medical/financial records,
not about unlocking a single persons.

The only path the government has is to coerce Apple into making backdoors or
purposefully weakening their encryption for _all_ devices which affects every
Americans fourth amendment rights - as well as public saftey.

Therefore this is not just about one person in a criminal trial - since a
backdoor can never be made only for a single court case, it will by nature
unlock the phones to any party who can create or get access to the backdoor.

So the only legal path for the government is to either coerce suspects into
self-incrimination by forcing them to unlock their phones or prevent
Apple/Google/etc customers from being able to meaningfully lock their phones
in the first place. The problem with the latter is that criminals/terrorists
won't be forced to use the backdoored Apple/Google/etc technology but can use
open-source versions with encryption to side-step law enforcement's efforts -
making it ultimately ineffective as a legal strategy.

------
Zigurd
It's still a muddle, and the tendentious Bloomberg headline does not help.
Microsoft's position is extremely cautious, but they had to side with Apple
because opening the "all writs" can of worms to compel software creation and
signing binaries is going to jack up law enforcement compliance costs to
unlimited levels. Gates, in the quote in the article, is also, still, trying
to have it both ways: _“The extreme view that government always gets
everything, nobody supports that. Having the government be blind, people don’t
support that.”_ Evidently he thinks conditional privacy is sufficient and that
the issue can be separated from encryption bans and an "all writs" model that
compels new things to be created at the whim of FBI agents.

------
dcw303
This just makes the Gates story even stranger. Did the FT misquote him because
they're incompetent, or do they have an ulterior motive at play?

~~~
sah2ed
It was stated at the end of the Bloomberg article that Bill Gates' position on
the issue was misreported:

 _Earlier this week, Microsoft co-founder Bill Gates told Bloomberg Television
he was “disappointed” by reports that he supports the U.S. government in this
dispute, saying it doesn’t accurately reflect his opinion.

“That doesn’t state my view on this,” he said in an interview on “Bloomberg
Go.” “The extreme view that government always gets everything, nobody supports
that. Having the government be blind, people don’t support that.”_

~~~
imron
Note that the article doesn't actually go on to clarify or accurately state
what his opinion is.

~~~
devhead
[http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/3559f46e-d9c5-11e5-98fd-06d75973fe...](http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/3559f46e-d9c5-11e5-98fd-06d75973fe09.html)

~~~
imron
Sure, but then he's saying he was misrepresented by that?

So do the quoted questions and answers written on that page accurately
represent what Gates said, because if they do, then although he might not be
'siding with the government', it seems he sees nothing problematic with the
government making this sort of request, either in compelling Apple to produce
a version of iOS that will allow for brute-forcing, or in this case setting
any sort of precedent for what the government can ask companies to do via the
All Writs Act.

Actually, if the quotes in that article are accurate, it seems that Gates
doesn't understand the issue at all, specifically:

> Apple has access to the information. They’re just refusing to provide the
> access and the courts will tell them whether to provide the access or not

Which is not the case here. Apple doesn't have access to the information and
they will need to build a customised and security-compromised version of iOS
in order to allow the FBI to attempt to retrieve that information.

------
teambob
I thought it was an _alleged_ terrorist's phone? Or has innocent until proven
guilty gone out the window?

~~~
roywiggins
"Innocent until proven guilty" only applies in a criminal trial. The man in
question died in a shootout with police; he will never be proven guilty,
because you can't put a dead man on trial. You can't libel or defame a dead
man, from the point of view of the law.

There has to be a point where media can call someone a terrorist short of
conviction in a court of law. You can argue that that point hasn't been
reached in this case, but there has to be a point, since otherwise we'd have
to call Bin Laden an "alleged terrorist."

~~~
switch007
As a very general comment as I do not know anything about the San Bernardino
case, I think we need to apply extreme caution when using the word "terrorist"
because of extreme, far-reaching legislation based on the broad definition of
terrorism:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism_Acts#List_of_legisla...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism_Acts#List_of_legislation)

------
simonebrunozzi
TL;DR here: [https://github.com/simonebrunozzi/MNMN/blob/master/Weekly-
Su...](https://github.com/simonebrunozzi/MNMN/blob/master/Weekly-
Summaries/2016-10.md#2-microsoft-google-facebook-back-apple-in-blocked-phone-
case)

------
huuu
This is all great but one thing bothers me: they still apply to some
government requests to give some data [1].

I know that adding a backdoor is different, but why not also protect for
example emails on a server?

[http://www.apple.com/privacy/government-information-
requests...](http://www.apple.com/privacy/government-information-requests/)

------
Aoyagi
Let's see, what's worse...

Giving access to data in supposedly limited cases to an authority that's
supposed to do it for the protection of the people, or;

sell the data to numerous third parties, who further make money of the data,
while there's absolutely no assurance the data isn't bought by the
aforementioned authority anyway?

------
ljk
Aren't Microsoft working with NSA? is this just a publicity stunt?

~~~
SmellyGeekBoy
Are you implying that Apple, Facebook, and Google aren't?

~~~
ljk
The skeptic in my wants to say they all are, but everyone is praising Apple
for some reason

------
leemalone1967
Apple has to protect customer privacy. I oppose Apple to give any information
to the FBI.

------
ck2
Hey look, they took the fear-mongering word "terrorist" out of the headline.

There's hope after all.

------
kungfooman
Plot twist: US companies and the US gov play a game whose only goal is to
reestablish lost trust since Snowden to make more $$$ again and sell more
hardware with US backdoors again.

------
ComputerGuru
Notice how the headline makes sure to specify "over terrorist's phone" and not
"over user privacy" or "against federal conscription by the FBI."

Take a second and re-read the headline. What does it say? To me, it spells out
Microsoft joins Apple to back terrorist's privacy against the FBI.

The government couldn't have chosen a better case to publicize in search of a
precedent in their favor. And the media isn't helping.

Edit: In case it wasn't clear, I think it's actually disingenuous to mention
the word "terrorist" in the headline at all. Nothing about why Apple is
resisting (which is the crux of this news cycle) has to do with the fact that
they are, bizarrely, fighting for _this_ (dead) user (who is undeniably a
madman murderer and potentially a terrorist)'s right to privacy.

Microsoft, Apple, Facebook, and everyone here in the comments isn't defending
_this_ person's right to privacy. It's 100% about the principle and the
precedent and it's a million times about the future users and nothing to do
with this horrible person. For that reason, it's unfair (in fact, you could
call it purposeful misrepresentation) to say that they are against the FBI
unlocking "terrorist's phone" or defending the "terrorist's privacy" in any
way. What they are doing, if one excludes self-interest, is protecting the
principle for everyone else out there.

~~~
0942v8653
I disagree. "Terrorist's Phone" is simply the most efficient way to identify
the case. "User's Privacy" would mean absolutely nothing to someone who hasn't
heard of the case as much as we have, especially considering most of Apple's
marketing nowadays is through that lens…

> The government couldn't have chosen a better case to publicize in search of
> a precedent in their favor.

If you'll allow me to be pedantic, they could have; we can be pretty sure this
phone has none of the evidence they want it to, and it's not like anyone at
Apple will lose sleep feeling responsible for aiding terrorism.

But my point is, this is simply the headline that will get the most clicks.
Any political bias in it is coincidental. (And of course, it seems reasonable
for most people to agree that, in a vacuum, it would be OK for Apple to unlock
the phone, as long as it never affected other users.)

~~~
oldmanjay
I'm not sure that it's easy to dismiss political bias as coincidental given
that the people publishing the article are professional wordsmiths who
understand the impact of every word they choose.

~~~
SapphireSun
There's an easier explanation.

"...around user privacy." Boring. No one will click that. "...against federal
conscription." Sounds like a conspiracy rag. "...terrorist phone."
Interesting! Let's click.

~~~
delazeur
Reminds me of the rule "don't ascribe to malice what incompetence can
explain."

Don't assume nefarious intent when there is a profit motive involved.

------
forgotmypassw
Nothing but a PR stunt.

~~~
logn
At least we've come full circle on PR. Capitalism does often respond to
consumer wishes. I tend to think the money I spend is the biggest 'vote' I
have in this country.

Besides, Apple was notably missing in the PRISM program during Jobs' reign.
I'm not as negative on Apple as some other companies.

------
Aoyagi
This reminds me of China condemning Russia's annexation of Crimea.

I wonder why is that.

------
betimsl
Isn't Microsoft who built PRISM?

------
w8rbt
I predict that Apple will win big and that their victory will be very public
and greatly celebrated. The purpose of this public display is to convince
criminals to buy iPhones.

They think they are safe. That's the whole point.

------
tashkent
Hmm I'm confused, so is FBI asking to unlock just this terrorist's phone or
setup a backdoor to all iPhones? If they are asking to unlock only this
terrorists phone I don't see why Apple should be fighting a case over this.

~~~
ThrustVectoring
The FBI is asking Apple to build a tool to backdoor this particular iPhone.
Once the tool is built, it gets much easier for them to ask Apple to use it on
other phones. "We'll only ask for it this one time, honest" isn't a believable
promise - Apple winds up with a much less defensible position later, since
they already have the tools necessary.

~~~
corysama
"The FBI has asked Apple to crack at least 17 devices since October"
[http://mashable.com/2016/02/23/fbi-apple-
requests/](http://mashable.com/2016/02/23/fbi-apple-requests/)

------
d0m
Couldn't Apple give the data of the terrorist's phone without creating a
backdoor? I.e. making it an exceptional case rather than something that could
easily be done again and again?

To be clear, I'm against the backdoor, but as an engineer I know that Apple
could give the data back if they wanted. I guess it's bad PR from them to say
so though.

I'm also very surprised at how transparent the FBI is about their incapacity
at cracking the phone. Or maybe this is also just for PR reasons and the phone
is already cracked?

~~~
mythz
> To be clear, I'm against the backdoor, but as an engineer I know that Apple
> could give the data back if they wanted.

What do you know? How are you suggesting they can extract encrypted data that
requires a passcode to decrypt when no existing version of iOS allows
electronic brute forcing?

Tim's already attested that they don't know any other way to access the data:
[http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/exclusive-apple-ceo-tim-
coo...](http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/exclusive-apple-ceo-tim-cook-iphone-
cracking-software/story?id=37173343)

~~~
d0m
What does it even mean "Cancer software"? Seems like PR bullshit to me. I've
got a hard time believing that Apple can't crack their own phone.

To be clear, do they mean that THIS phone is impossible to crack? I guess the
part I don't understand is how creating a backdoor for THIS phone makes it so
that ALL users would get a backdoor..? Couldn't they push the software just to
that phone for exceptional reasons? If the FBI wants to get other phones
opened, they'd have to get a court order by the law and that would be handled
on a case by case basis. Similarly to how the FBI could get a court order to
come in my house if they suspect criminal activities?

(Edited for clarity)

~~~
mythz
> What does that even mean "Cancer software"? Seems like PR bullshit to me.

Tim's addressing the wider public (i.e. not tech professionals) and explains
what he means in context, i.e. its bad software, something they would never
write or should ever be forced to write.

> I've got a hard time believing that apple can't crack their own phone.

You've said you know they can and are now saying you don't believe that they
can't. So how exactly should they decrypt encrypted data without the pass code
it was encrypted with?

> do they mean that THIS phone is impossible to crack, but that would let
> other phones be crackable in the future?

No, it's been stated a number of times including being written in the Court
Order that they can create a new version of iOS without software protections
that allows the FBI to brute force the pass code electronically. This is the
whole premise of the legal precedent, whether or not the FBI can compel Apple
to write software that doesn't yet exist to create a new version of iOS with a
backdoor that the FBI can exploit.

But they wont be able to do this with future iPhone's that are hardware
protected by the secure enclave.

~~~
d0m
>> You've said you know they can and are now saying you don't believe that
they can't. So how exactly should they decrypt encrypted data without the pass
code it was encrypted with?

Sorry, I meant to say "As an engineer, I've got a hard time believing that
Apple can't crack their own phone". Thanks for clarifying it up.

------
Zenst
If you ask yourself if the contents of the phone could reasonably aid in
saving other lives and bring about justice for those lost, then many would
without a doubt say yes, make it public. Equally if it was some politicians
emails then would they equally be happy for Apple to deny access being another
question you could ask with many comming up different perspective of reply if
you just ask the question about privacy.

Privacy is important but as with any rule, there has too be exceptions and I
would say clear lives at stake would be one case.

But equaly the way things work and setting precidence, I can totally
understand Apples and those supporting it's stance as the way things work in
law is once the door is open, its a lot harder to close it. If better
prevision without blanket abuse and a case by case basis could be approved and
not set some blanket level of privacy abuse then again many would be happier.

Alas it is the way the government has approached this in that they would be in
effect given a way that could be used with this but any other such devices at
no need to even speak with Apple that is the real crux I feel.

We agree terroisim and indeed impacting others life spans is not the types of
crimes we want hiding behind encryption or law, be that individuals or
goverments themselves. But in a World in which such terroisim definitions and
associated laws have and are being used on a scale and definition that
trancends what a terroist is, then the element of suspicion and mistrust on
the use of the term to jsutify any law or action comes more and more under
public scrutiny and concerns of how it will be abused more than it should.

So an area that is very much dammed if you do and potential dammed if you do
no equally. But for now Apple as others equally say are making the right
moves, albeit II hope a fair and acceptable compromise is established and no
blanket precedence that does more harm than good goes thru.

------
wheaties
Wow, so brilliant to have Bill Gates so he's pro-government intrusion and then
the company back Apple.

Update:

This was not meant to troll. I fell for the mis-attributed quotes to Bill and
thought he actually backed the FBI. I stand corrected.

~~~
FussyZeus
Also Gates consults with Microsoft occasionally and is a large stakeholder but
that does not mean Gates speaks for Microsoft, or that Microsoft speaks for
Gates. In fact, they disagree pretty regularly.

~~~
tdicola
He's a member of their board of directors and for a time was even the head of
it. The board has more control than even the CEO so it's safe to say Gates is
speaking for the company.

~~~
chirau
Was Marc Andreesen speaking on behalf of Facebook when he made those remarks
about India the other day? No. Neither was Bill Gates speaking for Microsoft.

