> The team came to the conclusion that the judge’s order was a PR move—a very public arm twisting to pressure Apple into complying with the FBI’s demands—and that it could be serious trouble for the company. Apple “is a famous, incredibly powerful consumer brand and we are going to be standing up against the FBI and saying in effect, ‘No, we’re not going to give you the thing that you’re looking for to try to deal with this terrorist threat,’” said Sewell.
What really happened is that Apple loudly proclaimed that they had made it impossible to comply with government data requests and even had a marketing page masquerading as a privacy page explaining that. The FBI asked Apple to put a build on a phone that would allow them to brute force the passcode, leaving the device and the build on Apple's premises the entire time. This showed that Apple's claim was false in practice. Apple quickly removed that marketing page in the wake of the news.
It doesn't matter how well it might be locked down or secured. If the government coerced them into building it, it wouldn't be difficult to go one more step and require apple to hand over the modified OS.
This  does a great job of explaining why building a master key is just a bad idea. This is a pandora's box we do not need to open.
Edit: downvotes of easily verifiable facts are causing hn to block me from responding. At the time Apple made the false marketing claims, no passcode was required to install a signed build. Hence, the FBI's request.
The FBI was asking for no more than what Apple could already do, and it was letting Apple control the whole process. The problem was that what Apple could already do disagreed with what Apple told its customers that it could do.
Bugs will always be found and it’s a mistake to think even the latest iPhone is immune to attack. In particular, the baseband continues to be a large attack surface, and IMO is the vector most likely used by the Saudis to remotely access iPhones on their cellular network.
I’d feel safer if a powered off iPhone did not connect to any network (WiFi, Cell, or USB) after booting until the passcode is entered.
See the "not technically feasible" marketing claim quoted on https://gizmodo.com/apple-wont-turn-over-your-phones-data-to... that has magically disappeared from the linked "privacy" page.
Oh give me a break. Apple only cares about American user privacy, and only then because it aligns with their business interests. Where is the oh-so-noble Tim Cook protesting the heinous civil rights and privacy violations in the business they do in China? Nowhere. Apple only cares about user privacy so much as it makes them money - in the US that means resisting the government, and in China it means hopping into bed with Big Daddy Xi.
Edit: For example, Snowden leaked an NSA slide saying that Apple had given in to cooperate with Prism, but Apple denied-denied-denied as soon as the news broke. It was only post-Snowden, when privacy could be monetized, that Apple suddenly started to care.
Have Tim Cook pulled them out by any chance? Or are they still siphoning off pretty much everything feds want that way despite all their very hard and very public stance against the FBI? It might be not acceptable in court per se, but it does put their "pro-privacy stance" in perspective.
(includes your slide in a proper context)
Greenwald, out of an abundance of incompetence, believed that DITU was a device in the companies' datacenters. DITU is a division of the FBI, not a device.
Edit: downvotes are causing hn to prevent me from responding, but the sibling comment from Anechoic is also wrong. That is not what the slide shows. The linked slide shows that PRISM ingested data legally obtained by the FBI.