Apple rejecting calls from FBI to unlock gunman's iPhone
Discussion
sgrimshaw said:
Typical Apple attitude.
If there's a court order (or whatever they call it in the US) and Apple simply refuses to comply, then it's contempt of court.
Someone's likely to be going to jail, and that's highly likely to be the CEO.
Yes the CEO of Apple will definitely be going to jail...If there's a court order (or whatever they call it in the US) and Apple simply refuses to comply, then it's contempt of court.
Someone's likely to be going to jail, and that's highly likely to be the CEO.
130R said:
That was patched by Apple over a year ago, so completely useless unless you don't update your device.
You are missing the point - I'm sure the FBI would be capable of finding an old patch on the internet, that wasn't my point, the point is that such hacks have been possible, Apple isn't as secure as they are making out to be, and all they need to do is introduce such a thing on one phone to help deal with a terrorist.anonymous said:
[redacted]
I'm not even sure it's that. Apple's stance, which I agree with - and I'm not their biggest fan - is that disregarding their own policies on data security in this instance undermines it entirely. They are essentially saying "your data is safe, no one can access it including us, except if someone has been really bad in which case we'll let the FBI brute force it". Something is either secure, or it isn't. It isn't "mostly secure, so long as you don't commit an emotive crime".
Once you capitulate to this request the genie is out of the bottle. It doesn't matter who has access to an eponymous iOS version that allows infinite access attempts, the fact that it exists negates the tenets of data security that Apple sell the product on.
No one is likely to have any sympathy for the terrorist owner in this instance, but Apple are 100% right in saying that acquiescence to this demand is about far more than this one iPhone.
anonymous said:
[redacted]
This makes no sense - noone is talking about introducing a generic mechanism into all iphones/iOs. By definition if someone other than apple can work out how to do what you are suggesting then they can do so today. I repeat, noone is asking Apple to change their hardware or iOs that they ship.anonymous said:
[redacted]
Now you are both missing the point. I'm not suggesting that the FBI go try old hacks - if it was that simple it would not have gone as far as it has. My point is that vulnerabilities have existed, Apple isn't as secure as they are claiming, so to introduce the type of vulnerability that they've been guilty of time and time again in the name of anti terrorism isn't such a big leap.There is no cost to everyone else because noone is asking apple to release this onto other hardware or iOs generally, the FBI want this specific device to be dealt with.
anonymous said:
[redacted]
There's a good chance that some evangelical "hacktivist" inside or close to Apple would release details of the mechanism in the interests of "improving security". As soon as they do that, the exploit can run until Apple patch round it. Repeat until devices become unusable.Security, speed, ease of use - pick 2.
Apple is concerned that sales will be impacted due to lack of confidence in security if they agree to this request, it is that simple. Anyone that thinks Apple has some religious belief in security and adherence to their policy on security is bonkers, Apple is primarily concerned with shareholder value, as with Google. I don't buy this "if you break one device none are secure" nonsense either, but I do accept that if the FBI are successful there will be other requests. To this I will reluctantly quote the mantra of those would don't like the idea of government having access to communications - if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear.
I will be watching this one with interest, I hope the FBI get what they've asked for if it helps them in the fight against terrorism.
I will be watching this one with interest, I hope the FBI get what they've asked for if it helps them in the fight against terrorism.
0000 said:
There's nothing special about this phone. If it can be specifically dealt with they all can.
Yes, by the manufacturer at the FBI's request. The fact the FBI are asking, and that Apple do not appear to be saying "it is impossible" suggests that it is possible which means the people on here that don't want the capability available are doomed? I repeat - they are asking to target a specific phone not all phones, at least that is what I'm reading.ATG said:
Encryption is not the issue. They are asking for help to unlock the phone, not to decrypt the data on it.
But unlocking the phone does decrypt the data on it. It's semantics. The FBI don't want to be seen as asking for a 'back door' by the average user without the technical savvy to know that they're the same thing. In the battle for public acceptance of a back door, not calling it such is their strategy.I'm right behind Apple on this one.
silverous said:
Yes, by the manufacturer at the FBI's request. The fact the FBI are asking, and that Apple do not appear to be saying "it is impossible" suggests that it is possible which means the people on here that don't want the capability available are doomed? I repeat - they are asking to target a specific phone not all phones, at least that is what I'm reading.
If they do it for one agency, they'll be swamped with orders to do it for others. Gassing Station | Computers, Gadgets & Stuff | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff