The court on FBI’s request had ordered to unlock and decrypt iPhone of one of the shooters in San Barn shooting (Syed Farooq).
Apple’s stand is very clear: i.e. Once it unlocks or decrypts the iphone it’ll be no longer in its control and most likely the hackers from china etc will take over that, its users will no longer trust them and their business will be doomed.
Right now Apple has one of the best encryption in place making sure that we can do all sorta banking and financial transactions thru apps.
Also, people are blaming govt to use it as a precedence where it can use the decryption to spy on millions of other consumers.
I am not sure how giving access to one phone can open up other phone users to the threat of hacking. Maybe, I am missing something here
I think what SID is saying if Apple gives in once, FBI will demand it again for someone else and before you know all users' privacy will be compromised.
1) Apple was very proud of the latest encryption algorithm it had applied. The way its designed is that even apple cannot decrypt that. But as per court orders Apple has to write a new software to crack its own encryption code. Once decrypted there is a huge chance that code can get into its hand of others so wut will most likely follow is that there all those financial transaction that you do now via apps or anything will be wide open and as a result none of the consumers will trust iphone anymore. Result in a nutshell: Apple may most likely be wiped off the smartphone market.
2) Apple has been working with FBI for a long time and has resolved 70 cases with them. Various phones unlocked etc. But this one is different cuz the encryption technique to be cracked is unique. Same technique is going to be used in upcoming iPhone 7 so after breaking the code, Apple will have to revise the whole thing again which may take years.
I nutshell, apple has a lot to loose here.
^ what you are saying makes sense at it's face value, but it's hard to digest that Apple would design an encrypting code in such a way that even Apple can't decrypt. Then maybe they did. I am not an expert I this field
Again, am not a legal expert, but *stare decisis *is the practice that deals with court decisions emerged from previous decisions. This is a criminal investigation, not a trial.
What is bothering me is the argument we are carrying here, without realizing the real matter. We are not talking about FBI trying to access the data to read someone's love chat with his girlfriend. This is a matter of national security. To this day, FBI does not know the real links of California shooters. You really think that wrong judicial precedent or encryption technique getting into the hands of wrong people should be the main concern here, or figuring out if there arr bunch of others like Farook and his wife who are planing similar attacks in other parts of this country should be the matter of priority?
what's stopping the FBI from bringing on talent that can decrypt?
if Apple can do it.....that means it can be done.....just need the right amount of money to throw at it.....
sure it would be faster if the government could pressure Apple into it but I'm sure there's no shortage of funding if FBI decides to take on the task.
what's stopping the FBI from bringing on talent that can decrypt?
if Apple can do it.....that means it can be done.....just need the right amount of money to throw at it.....
sure it would be faster if the government could pressure Apple into it but I'm sure there's no shortage of funding if FBI decides to take on the task.
Some decryption require millions of years if FBI start working on that...
maybe not millions
that’s precisely why the FBI would prefer to put pressure on Apple and not take on the task themselves.
but fact remains, if they wanted to, they could invest the money and do it themselves.
Again, am not a legal expert, but *stare decisis *is the practice that deals with court decisions emerged from previous decisions. This is a criminal investigation, not a trial.
What is bothering me is the argument we are carrying here, without realizing the real matter. We are not talking about FBI trying to access the data to read someone's love chat with his girlfriend. This is a matter of national security. To this day, FBI does not know the real links of California shooters. You really think that wrong judicial precedent or encryption technique getting into the hands of wrong people should be the main concern here, or figuring out if there arr bunch of others like Farook and his wife who are planing similar attacks in other parts of this country should be the matter of priority?
It was a court-order.
The FBI went to court to compel Apple's assistance in accessing encrypted data. Through the courts, the FBI is compelling a private person (Apple as a corporation is a person), to circumvent privacy rights. Yes, I know in this case, it is the rights of decedents, but if unchallenged and successful, it can be more broadly applied.
Added to which, when the California District Court issued the legal order, it is not merely to access ONE phone, but as Apple sees it, a way for the FBI or other law enforcement to access all devices (the back-door/master key argument). Apple is I believe now challenging that court order and stating the court order is contrary to existing legal rights and principles.
In the land of America, constitutional rights trump all other rights (eg. right to bear arms versus background checks prior to purchasing a gun). It will now be up to the higher courts to determine whether the public interest and safety are more important than the constitutional right of privacy and free speech. A court may limit Constitutional rights, but only if the limiting is narrow in scope and directly attributed to a more pressing and important public interest.
I believe that is a way for people to request the federal government to disclose certain federally-controlled information - not a relevant law in this context.
all i know is more than 10 years ago some idiot tried to set fire on a plane using his shoe and now everyone has to take off their shoes at airports. there will be exceptional circumstances, but the US has a tendency to turn that into routine. good on Apple to not give in.
