Apple and National Security

[trish]

http://nyti.ms/1Q1OpeO

If it were possible to hack into that one phone (was it Farook's) without creating a universal software-key for all Apple phones, then I would say Apple should comply with the subpoena. This (I think) would maintain the personal privacy of the larger public and provide valuable information for keeping the larger public safe from terrorists. On the downside it would not be so good for Apple's reputation and it would put wedge in the door making many us feel less secure in our privacy.

As Apple explains it, it is not possible to hack into just one phone. They would have to write software that is essentially a universal key. There would be no way to guarantee the security of key. Not only might law enforcement agencies use it in unwarranted ways, but it would inevitably leak into the public domain where criminals would use it to commit fraud, theft and other nefarious crimes.

One question is, is Apple correct? They're certainly between a rock and hard place. Most hard-ass-let's-carpet-bomb-'em-to-oblivion types are against anyone or anything that might provide protection for a terrorist. Libertarians, on the other knee, jerk the other way. Both are right wing stances. The rest of us are aware of the complexities and nuances of the issue.

Currently, I lean in favor of Apple (as if any action will depend upon my leaning - dickish or not) because I think the case they make is probably correct. Certainly if Apple writes a skeleton key, it will eventually end up in the hands of criminals. The risk of being a victim from illicit use of such a key is (I think) greater than the risk of being a victim of terrorism. The only problem with this argument is it relies on an assumption (Apple has to make a universal key to crack Farook's phone) that I'm taking on authority (Apple's). Another seemingly relevant question is: once the key is made, can all other phones be quickly updated by having customers download and install modified OS's that defeat the key?

[broncofan]

Another seemingly relevant question is: once the key is made, can all other phones be quickly updated by having customers download and install modified OS's that defeat the key?

This is a good question. Or is there any way for apple to extract the information and safeguard the process they used to do it? Or would that lead to too much potential that the universal key becomes publicly available? Is apple concerned that if they extract the information they will be acting as de facto agents of the government which is not a position they should have to take?

I have not read enough about the controversy to know what can be done to safeguard privacy and release specific information.

[broncofan]

The case does seem to break new ground in the sense that it is not the actual accessing of unauthorized information that is at issue but the ability to access information. The government has the authority to view one person's data, but viewing that data would break down any technological barrier to viewing other people's data. So the question is: does giving someone the potential to invade your privacy invade your privacy? Do you feel a subjective invasion of privacy knowing that someone could access personal information? I think yes. If apple is being honest about the universality of the key and the sensitivity of the information they would release, I agree with them.

[dreamon]

John McAfee said he would hack the phone for free. But the government won't take him up on it because their goal isn't that phone but rather all phones.

[trish]

Are you a gullible idiot who'll believe anything an anti-patriot says, or do you just make this shit up? Yes, McAfee offered his services (although the NSA has far superior expertise), but the rest is just fluff, the kind you dream on.

[broncofan]

The other day the government broke into my sock drawer and matched the dress socks with the athletic socks. It's obvious they're not content with privacy violations but are now playing mind games. We should not have people working in government because we can't trust people. We shouldn't have laws because we can't trust words. The only thing I have faith in is the rightness of my universal distrust of everyone and their motives.

[sukumvit boy]

It's a cross roads...

[dreamon]

It takes an incredibly naive idiot to believe that the FBI only wants into one phone.

[trish]

I never said they only want one phone (I've got two myself). But to think that's the reason they're refusing McAfee's offer is stupidity sublime.

[fred41]

I agree with Trish...When I first read about this several days ago, I figured if they can do it with one phone...why not. But that was also based on some of the erroneous information we received by the news articles. Many of the journalists reporting on this issue are as tech savvy as many of us...which is to say - not at all. They also don't bother reading the actual court order, so they, like many of us, respond on an emotional level without knowing all the facts.
Having read their response, I currently agree with Apple.
This however, is not a 'right' or 'left' issue. As long as it's 'their man' (or woman) in office, a voter will often give carte blanche regardless of political affiliation.
BTW - here's the actual court order:
https://assets.documentcloud.org/doc...sst-iPhone.pdf