8 years ago
6
Apple Responds To Order To Help Decrypt Phone, As More Details Come To Light
it was ordering something much more specific: that Apple create a special firmware that would disable two distinct security features within iOS -- one that would effectively wipe the encrypted contents following 10 failed attempts at entering the unlocking PIN (by throwing away the stored decryption key) and a second one that would progressively slow down the amount of time between repeated attempts at entering the PIN.
Continue Reading
https://www.techdirt.com
Additional Contributions:
-
+7Submitted 8 years ago by bradd
-
+6Submitted 8 years ago by kxh
-
+6Submitted 8 years ago by messi
-
+3Submitted 8 years ago by AdelleChattre
-
+3Submitted 8 years ago by AdelleChattre
Join the Discussion
The part of the story that people- including the author of this article, are leaving out is that this is a work phone, issued to the shooter by his employer the San Bernardino County Department of Public Health. It's their phone, and they've consented to the search.
I don't blame Tim Cook for making a public statement on this and creating this illusion of pushback, but Apple is going to comply with the order, as well they should.
It's interesting but I don't think it makes that much difference. A farmer can buy a tractor but can't repair it because he's not allowed to decrypt the software that it runs on because it's owned by the company. The SBDoPH gave the guy the phone at least in part for his private use surely. Apple owns the software. Do mere humans have any right to privacy in the US any more? When you make a phone call, you are giving your private data to a phone company and lose all rights to your private data. Do only corporations have any right to privacy any more? Are corporations the only real people?
I expect Apple to push back significantly on this, even if it's technically possible to do the decryption. While there may be a public benefit to decrypting the phone, there is also a significant public benefit to not allowing the government to decrypt it.
I'm a business owner who issues cellphones to a large part of my staff. Every one of them, when they get their phone, signs the same form that my lawyer drew up saying that they understand that: A) The phone is being issued for work related business only, and B) The phone, and everything on it, are property of the company. Now while I've never worked for the San Bernardino County Department of Public Health, I'm willing to bet dollars to donuts that the shooter signed a similar form when he was issued his phone.
If he wanted privacy, there was nothing stopping him from going out and buying his own phone to conduct his personal business, but that's not what he did. He used a device that belonged to someone else, and now that owner has given the FBI permission to search the device, as is their right. This isn't an issue of privacy.
I simply don't care.
This isn't some FBI Agent trying to bully Apple into pulling some real-world "The Dark Knight" big brother scenario. The FBI took their case to a Judge who looked at the evidence and then issued the order. That's exactly what's supposed to happen; that's how our legal system works. Tim Cook and Apple don't get to take it upon themselves to decide what laws they will or won't obey, and they certainly don't get to unilaterally decide to ignore a Court Order.
As I said earlier, I understand the need for Tim Cook to make it look like he's unwilling to comply with the Government, but that's only what it looks like. Non-compliance was never a viable option on this one.
I believe it's easy enough to technically enforce corporate policies with iphones. You could enforce a company password or a company backdoor. Then it's really clear that it's a company phone. The "only work" thing sounds a bit like slavery to me. Don't you think people will be more productive if you allow them a little leeway, treat them like humans, like free people? Your company, your call though.
Oh, I seriously doubt Apple will ignore it. It will probably fight it tooth and nail though.
We'll see.
If the company, San Bernardino County Department of Public Health, wishes to consent to the search of the phone, they are free to provide the password. If they do not have the password, they were negligent in their security policies. That they do not have the password is not Apple's fault.
Asking –no– telling Apple they must create a new piece of software, as opposed to simply providing that which already exists, is much too tall an order.
I disagree with you that they both will and they should comply with the order. They haven't amassed a fortune not to spend it on something as important as this.
This is the only acceptable response. Good job Apple.