Should Apple Decrypt the San Bernardino iPhone?

OllieC

OllieC

Well-Known Member
SILVER Sponsor
Mar 11, 2013
6,824
N.W. ‘Sconnie
Boat Info
Sara Belle
2005 Weekender 215
Engines
Mercruiser 5.0 mpi, Bravo III
It seems to be a pretty hot topic as of lately.

If it was 15 years ago, with my uninformed'ness', I would have probably said emphatically; "Hell Yes!". However with the revelations about NSA spying and Government overreach, I am the opposite.

I like the idea of the FBI asking Apple to decrypt the phone and then Apple handing them the phone decrypted, with the appropriate warrants. I am not in favor of giving the Feds carte blanche on decryption software for complete access.

thoughts?
 
Last edited:
I say Apple should open the phone, retrieve the data and give it (the data) to the FBI. That way the methods stay inside of Apple... and you know they can do it.

For national security cases, I think it would be approaching treason for Apple to not do something to help the FBI with their investigation.
 
Hell NO!!! Apple does not hold the decryption keys for any of its users so the only way for them to decrypt the phone would be to create a back door. Any back door weakens every single iOS device and opens the door to not only the government but any hacker with enough fortitude and persistence.

There is no way to create a back door that is only accessible by Apple. If the door exists, it can be broken into by anyone. It's like adding a door to the back of your house and adding 100 deadbolts and only you have the keys. It wouldn't be too tough for someone to open the locks or break down the door with enough persistence. Same with forcing Apple to decrypt the iPhone.

Further, Apple can't create a back door then delete the back door. The fact that they created it in the first place proves it's possible so then the whole platform is weakened.
 
Last edited:
No!

Under no circumstances. If they do the backdoor will be open and no one can secure their personal data and overall safety will be compromised. If they do it for the US, should they open it for a "court order" from China? Russia, Cuba, Iran?

Ben Franklin said, ”Those Who Sacrifice Liberty For Security Deserve Neither.”

MM
 
To answer the OP's original question: No.

I held off for a long time on which way I felt. Very pro-privacy, but realize for the common good the government has to be able to get to information to protect from imminent threats.

Have learned a lot more in the last day or so about specifically what is being requested of Apple (it is not really a decryption issue).

This is not a privacy issue, the owner of the phone (and data) has given permission for searching the phone. This is not a "search warrant" issue. The phone is owned by the city and was issued to the employee. The city has granted permission for searching the phone.

This is the government going to a company, and dictating how they use their resources and how they should change the "functional requirements" of their product. I have read there is legislation and case law which supports Apple's position, although not necessarily tested in this technology.

The court of public opinion may swing back and forth, but I do not think it is reasonable for the government require that resources be diverted within Apple to modify their product - which subsequently has the probable outcome to "devalue" the product in the market, thus devaluing the company.
 
FootballFan

I too have been on the fence in regards to voicing my opinion because I don't know all of the facts. I just figured out today about the Feds trying to force Apple into 'modifying' their product. I assumed Apple had the ability all along.




It's good to see, so far anyway, that so many are standing up for our liberty on this site. To be honest, I was for the Patriot Act when first announced, without considering the Bill of Rights. I had the; "Go ahead, I'm not doing anything wrong - let's get the bastards!", attitude. It took a few years after 9/11 (the first one) for me to understand the Bill of Rights and our Constitution as opposed to just quoting certain sections of it when I needed to win an argument. I try and instill this in my little one.

What really hit me personally, I was sent the 'Long Form Census' in 09/10. The Feds wanted to know, race, if I owned my house, how many vehicles, what I did for work....etc..multiple pages of personal questions with a written guarantee that the information would be safe.....LOL! (like they couldn't get most of the info off the internet). What I only filled out, that was required by law, was how many in the household. I had 3 months of non-stop phone calls with one threatening a dollar amount per question that I didn't complete. My wife freaked out.......talk about brushing up on the 4th Amendment...
...anyway I digress......

... I am so tired of the overreach .........
 
Last edited:
I say yes! Especially if the dude is dead. Maybe it can help alter future terrorist attacks or public shootings.

If the FBI, Government or other Alphabet Agency suspected something was on my phone, I'd let them have a look! I've got nothing to hide.

Cheers
 
You do know that apple has done this exact same thing in 70 other cases. I'd say allow apple to access on behalf of the city, who owns the phone, then share accordingly based on the warrant.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
kvduff said:
You do know that apple has done this exact same thing in 70 other cases. I'd say allow apple to access on behalf of the city, who owns the phone, then share accordingly based on the warrant.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Supposedly (I have not seen it with my own eyes) Apple released a statement today that the "70 other cases" story was incorrect. They said they had never broken into a phone for the a governmental agency.

This is not a warrant issue.

This is a court order for Apple to develop functionality which does not exist today.
 
kvduff said:
You do know that apple has done this exact same thing in 70 other cases. I'd say allow apple to access on behalf of the city, who owns the phone, then share accordingly based on the warrant.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Not quite,
Has Apple really complied with similar orders in the past?

It's been stated that Apple has unlocked phones 70 times in the past for the authorities. However, this was a very different proposition for older phones without disk encryption. For older phones with no encryption, Apple already had a software version to bypass the unlock screen (used, for example, in Apple stores to unlock phones when customers had forgotten their passcode). So this past history might be completely irrelevant for the case at hand if it's a difference between writing new security-critical software and using software that already existed. In this case, Apple is not refusing to do something that it has done before; the kind of assistance it provided in the past would not be relevant here.
Furthermore, even if Apple had written custom-cracking software in the past, it might reasonably no longer want to do so due to the security risks of writing, testing, and signing this software listed above.

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2016/02/technical-perspective-apple-iphone-case
 
Strypes said:
I say yes! Especially if the dude is dead. Maybe it can help alter future terrorist attacks or public shootings.

If the FBI, Government or other Alphabet Agency suspected something was on my phone, I'd let them have a look! I've got nothing to hide.

Cheers
Click to expand...

This isn't a "nothing to hide" issue -- allowing this weakens the integrating of all the phones. You may not have anything to hide from the government but you probably don't want strangers poking around in your stuff. Create a back door and hackers will find a way in.

kvduff said:
You do know that apple has done this exact same thing in 70 other cases. I'd say allow apple to access on behalf of the city, who owns the phone, then share accordingly based on the warrant.
Click to expand...

I would like to see proof of this. Providing a users unencrypted iCloud backup data via a court order is not even close to the same issue at hand. The FBI is demanding that Apple alter their operating system and create a back door so they can access your private, encrypted data.

If you store your stuff in cloud and it's not encrypted, the government can request copies with a proper court order. This is the same as a search warrant or a wire tap or requesting your ISP to hand over online activity. What the FBI is requesting is not even close to the same issue.
 
Question - can the government appropriate a private corporation to do it's bidding against it's corporate will without a declaration of war? The answer historically has been no.
Has the corporation been found in-contraire to law? The answer again is no.
So, can the government lock pick a ford car with a court order if the car is suspect of evidence of an ongoing criminal investigation? The answer is yes; for that car only but not all Ford products.
Here is the issue - the FBI wants a back door opened. This is the back door for all Iphones, not just the suspect device and that's Apples basis for refusal.
So, weigh this -
1. Our government has been impressing the desire for more public security, complex passwords, and encrypted personal security - we now are working to that goal. Now the Federal Government has issues with the very thing they were driving.
2. What trust has the government endeared with the public and corporate America that they will use an encryption breaking tool with jurisprudence and legal permission? Very little as of late.
3. What assurance has been provided that such encryption software will be secure and protected? With all of the security breakdowns and breaches of the government computing systems lately? Little....
 
I'm still on the fence!

You can't tell me that with all the hackers our gov has, no one can crack the code to this phone? Doesn't the owner of the phone (the city) own the information in it? What are they hoping to find, names and numbers to others that helped them? If a City owned phone is used for personal communications wouldn't the city have the right to see what was going on?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Forum statistics

Threads
113,116
Messages
1,426,392
Members
61,028
Latest member
ddbyrd329
Back
Top