Apple A Message to Our Customers

February 16, 2016 A Message to Our Customers
The United States government has demanded that Apple take an unprecedented step which threatens the security of our customers. We oppose this order, which has implications far beyond the legal case at hand. 
This moment calls for public discussion, and we want our customers and people around the country to understand what is at stake.

The Need for Encryption

Smartphones, led by iPhone, have become an essential part of our lives. People use them to store an incredible amount of personal information, from our private conversations to our photos, our music, our notes, our calendars and contacts, our financial information and health data, even where we have been and where we are going.
All that information needs to be protected from hackers and criminals who want to access it, steal it, and use it without our knowledge or permission. Customers expect Apple and other technology companies to do everything in our power to protect their personal information, and at Apple we are deeply committed to safeguarding their data.
Compromising the security of our personal information can ultimately put our personal safety at risk. That is why encryption has become so important to all of us.
For many years, we have used encryption to protect our customers’ personal data because we believe it’s the only way to keep their information safe. We have even put that data out of our own reach, because we believe the contents of your iPhone are none of our business.

The San Bernardino Case

We were shocked and outraged by the deadly act of terrorism in San Bernardino last December. We mourn the loss of life and want justice for all those whose lives were affected. The FBI asked us for help in the days following the attack, and we have worked hard to support the government’s efforts to solve this horrible crime. We have no sympathy for terrorists.
When the FBI has requested data that’s in our possession, we have provided it. Apple complies with valid subpoenas and search warrants, as we have in the San Bernardino case. We have also made Apple engineers available to advise the FBI, and we’ve offered our best ideas on a number of investigative options at their disposal.
We have great respect for the professionals at the FBI, and we believe their intentions are good. Up to this point, we have done everything that is both within our power and within the law to help them. But now the U.S. government has asked us for something we simply do not have, and something we consider too dangerous to create. They have asked us to build a backdoor to the iPhone.
Specifically, the FBI wants us to make a new version of the iPhone operating system, circumventing several important security features, and install it on an iPhone recovered during the investigation. In the wrong hands, this software — which does not exist today — would have the potential to unlock any iPhone in someone’s physical possession.
The FBI may use different words to describe this tool, but make no mistake: Building a version of iOS that bypasses security in this way would undeniably create a backdoor. And while the government may argue that its use would be limited to this case, there is no way to guarantee such control.

The Threat to Data Security

Some would argue that building a backdoor for just one iPhone is a simple, clean-cut solution. But it ignores both the basics of digital security and the significance of what the government is demanding in this case.
In today’s digital world, the “key” to an encrypted system is a piece of information that unlocks the data, and it is only as secure as the protections around it. Once the information is known, or a way to bypass the code is revealed, the encryption can be defeated by anyone with that knowledge.
The government suggests this tool could only be used once, on one phone. But that’s simply not true. Once created, the technique could be used over and over again, on any number of devices. In the physical world, it would be the equivalent of a master key, capable of opening hundreds of millions of locks — from restaurants and banks to stores and homes. No reasonable person would find that acceptable.
The government is asking Apple to hack our own users and undermine decades of security advancements that protect our customers — including tens of millions of American citizens — from sophisticated hackers and cybercriminals. The same engineers who built strong encryption into the iPhone to protect our users would, ironically, be ordered to weaken those protections and make our users less safe.
We can find no precedent for an American company being forced to expose its customers to a greater risk of attack. For years, cryptologists and national security experts have been warning against weakening encryption. Doing so would hurt only the well-meaning and law-abiding citizens who rely on companies like Apple to protect their data. Criminals and bad actors will still encrypt, using tools that are readily available to them.

A Dangerous Precedent

Rather than asking for legislative action through Congress, the FBI is proposing an unprecedented use of the All Writs Act of 1789 to justify an expansion of its authority.
The government would have us remove security features and add new capabilities to the operating system, allowing a passcode to be input electronically. This would make it easier to unlock an iPhone by “brute force,” trying thousands or millions of combinations with the speed of a modern computer.
The implications of the government’s demands are chilling. If the government can use the All Writs Act to make it easier to unlock your iPhone, it would have the power to reach into anyone’s device to capture their data. The government could extend this breach of privacy and demand that Apple build surveillance software to intercept your messages, access your health records or financial data, track your location, or even access your phone’s microphone or camera without your knowledge.
Opposing this order is not something we take lightly. We feel we must speak up in the face of what we see as an overreach by the U.S. government.
We are challenging the FBI’s demands with the deepest respect for American democracy and a love of our country. We believe it would be in the best interest of everyone to step back and consider the implications.
While we believe the FBI’s intentions are good, it would be wrong for the government to force us to build a backdoor into our products. And ultimately, we fear that this demand would undermine the very freedoms and liberty our government is meant to protect.

Tim Cook

I agree with them.  Once they produce a tool to break the encryption nothing would be safe.

What the FBI is asking for essentially is to destroy their product.  Once the encryption is broken the product is no longer secure.  How arrogant!  Imagine if the FBI demanded that all wheels forever be taken off motor vehicles?! All showers have windows out onto the streets! All locks have a pass key that is readily available at any variety store!  We're lucky it's Apple...someone who can punch back.

I can't understand law enforcement, so obsessed with their authoritarianism that the don't realize they are destroying life, fcs.  Nothing depicts this more than this privacy vs. police debate.

Giving up freedom in the name of freedom rather defeats the object.

How would anyone else get hold of the software though?

Raggamuffin wrote:How would anyone else get hold of the software though?

Buy it at any dealer. You don't expect it to be kept a secret, do you? You don't know private enterprise.

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:How would anyone else get hold of the software though?

Buy it at any dealer.  You don't expect it to be kept a secret, do you?  You don't know private enterprise.

I thought they just wanted it for one phone only.

Raggamuffin wrote:How would anyone else get hold of the software though?

please dont take this the wrong way raggs its not intended to be insulting



HAHAHAHAHAHA  naive


thats the easy bit rags (generally)

Raggamuffin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Buy it at any dealer.  You don't expect it to be kept a secret, do you?  You don't know private enterprise.

I thought they just wanted it for one phone only.

Rags, every phone is built the exact same way. You devise software to break into one, you have software to break into every phone. They are all the same.

Privacy is as important to phones as mobility is to automobiles. You create a back-door for a communications device, you've ruined the product. The FBI simply can't put 2 and 2 together.

Don't they just want the software to look at one particular phone? The implication is that someone at Apple or the FBI would steal the software then.

Oh lor, don't you sometimes feel like banging your head against the wall when someone just don't understand, no matter how many times they are told!

Raggamuffin wrote:Don't they just want the software to look at one particular phone? The implication is that someone at Apple or the FBI would steal the software then.

No, they don't in fact want to limit themselves to just one phone.  The FBI will not hesitate to use the software 'break-and-enter' on every phone where they want to invade the privacy of someone.

What is worse, nothing will prevent someone from selling the software on the open market.  It's not proprietary to the FBI.  You can be sure that some engineer will see profits and go out and sell it.

It's even worse...Apple has developed a system whereby if you try to break in more that xx times, the whole system will melt down and the data will die.  So the FBI wants Apple to give them the code to destroy that aspect of the phone's software.  So it really is destruction of the phone in the real sense.

sassy wrote:Oh lor, don't you sometimes feel like banging your head against the wall when someone just don't understand, no matter how many times they are told!

You never actually explain anything though do you? You just copy and paste everything and have virtually nothing to say for yourself.

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:Don't they just want the software to look at one particular phone? The implication is that someone at Apple or the FBI would steal the software then.

No, they don't in fact want to limit themselves to just one phone.  The FBI will not hesitate to use the software 'break-and-enter' on every phone where they want to invade the privacy of someone.

What is worse, nothing will prevent someone from selling the software on the open market.  It's not proprietary to the FBI.  You can be sure that some engineer will see profits and go out and sell it.

It's even worse...Apple has developed a system whereby if you try to break in more that xx times, the whole system will melt down and the data will die.  So the FBI wants Apple to give them the code to destroy that aspect of the phone's software.  So it really is destruction of the phone in the real sense.

The article says they want to use it on one phone.

Specifically, the FBI wants us to make a new version of the iPhone operating system, circumventing several important security features, and install it on an iPhone recovered during the investigation.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

No, they don't in fact want to limit themselves to just one phone.  The FBI will not hesitate to use the software 'break-and-enter' on every phone where they want to invade the privacy of someone.

What is worse, nothing will prevent someone from selling the software on the open market.  It's not proprietary to the FBI.  You can be sure that some engineer will see profits and go out and sell it.

It's even worse...Apple has developed a system whereby if you try to break in more that xx times, the whole system will melt down and the data will die.  So the FBI wants Apple to give them the code to destroy that aspect of the phone's software.  So it really is destruction of the phone in the real sense.

The article says they want to use it on one phone.

Specifically, the FBI wants us to make a new version of the iPhone operating system, circumventing several important security features, and install it on an iPhone recovered during the investigation.

Put it  this way rags i have FBI computer forensic software on a cd somewhere not something normally available
 getting software is easy maliciously or other ways
once there is a patch that allows what the FBI want to do on "1" phone will be done on all phones regardless
its the nature of the beast i am afraid

Raggamuffin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

No, they don't in fact want to limit themselves to just one phone.  The FBI will not hesitate to use the software 'break-and-enter' on every phone where they want to invade the privacy of someone.

What is worse, nothing will prevent someone from selling the software on the open market.  It's not proprietary to the FBI.  You can be sure that some engineer will see profits and go out and sell it.

It's even worse...Apple has developed a system whereby if you try to break in more that xx times, the whole system will melt down and the data will die.  So the FBI wants Apple to give them the code to destroy that aspect of the phone's software.  So it really is destruction of the phone in the real sense.

The article says they want to use it on one phone.

Specifically, the FBI wants us to make a new version of the iPhone operating system, circumventing several important security features, and install it on an iPhone recovered during the investigation.

What it means is the FBI is motivated on this occasion to use it on one phone. Look, the FBI is trying to sell it's position to the public, in the press. So it's making this into a cops-and-robbers episode so we'll all cheer the good guys.

But instead of just another episode of Fast and Furious, the FBI essentially wants to destroy the mobility of all automobiles. Changes the plot somewhat, doesn't it?

Imagine it's small-pox infection. And the FBI wants to spread the virus around because it might turn the bad guys blue. Maybe the won't...they don't know. But one thing's for sure...the infection will then be out there! Do you really want that?

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

The article says they want to use it on one phone.

What it means is the FBI is motivated on this occasion to use it on one phone.  Look, the FBI is trying to sell it's position to the public, in the press.  So it's making this into a cops-and-robbers episode so we'll all cheer the good guys.

But instead of just another episode of Fast and Furious, the FBI essentially wants to destroy the mobility of all automobiles.  Changes the plot somewhat, doesn't it?

Imagine it's small-pox infection.  And the FBI wants to spread the virus around because it might turn the bad guys blue.  Maybe the won't...they don't know.  But one thing's for sure...the infection will then be out there!  Do you really want that?

They don't seem to understand that the software does not exist, will have to be made for them, and once it is made there will be no keeping a lid on it, and all smartphones will be at risk.  Thank goodness Apple is standing up to them.  As I said, losing our freedom in the name of freedom is pretty bloody pointless.

sassy wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

What it means is the FBI is motivated on this occasion to use it on one phone.  Look, the FBI is trying to sell it's position to the public, in the press.  So it's making this into a cops-and-robbers episode so we'll all cheer the good guys.

But instead of just another episode of Fast and Furious, the FBI essentially wants to destroy the mobility of all automobiles.  Changes the plot somewhat, doesn't it?

Imagine it's small-pox infection.  And the FBI wants to spread the virus around because it might turn the bad guys blue.  Maybe the won't...they don't know.  But one thing's for sure...the infection will then be out there!  Do you really want that?

They don't seem to understand that the software does not exist, will have to be made for them, and once it is made there will be no keeping a lid on it, and all smartphones will be at risk.  Thank goodness Apple is standing up to them.  As I said, losing our freedom in the name of freedom is pretty bloody pointless.

That's why I changed the metaphor to the small-pox example. Some people don't realize they are asking for Apple to invent a virus that will destroy the product.

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

The article says they want to use it on one phone.

What it means is the FBI is motivated on this occasion to use it on one phone.  Look, the FBI is trying to sell it's position to the public, in the press.  So it's making this into a cops-and-robbers episode so we'll all cheer the good guys.

But instead of just another episode of Fast and Furious, the FBI essentially wants to destroy the mobility of all automobiles.  Changes the plot somewhat, doesn't it?

Imagine it's small-pox infection.  And the FBI wants to spread the virus around because it might turn the bad guys blue.  Maybe the won't...they don't know.  But one thing's for sure...the infection will then be out there!  Do you really want that?

You mean the FBI is lying.

Original Quill wrote:

sassy wrote:


They don't seem to understand that the software does not exist, will have to be made for them, and once it is made there will be no keeping a lid on it, and all smartphones will be at risk.  Thank goodness Apple is standing up to them.  As I said, losing our freedom in the name of freedom is pretty bloody pointless.

That's why I changed the metaphor to the small-pox example.  Some people don't realize they are asking for Apple to invent a virus that will destroy the product.

Because it will.  Why would they want to spend millions to invent something that will destroy their product.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

What it means is the FBI is motivated on this occasion to use it on one phone.  Look, the FBI is trying to sell it's position to the public, in the press.  So it's making this into a cops-and-robbers episode so we'll all cheer the good guys.

But instead of just another episode of Fast and Furious, the FBI essentially wants to destroy the mobility of all automobiles.  Changes the plot somewhat, doesn't it?

Imagine it's small-pox infection.  And the FBI wants to spread the virus around because it might turn the bad guys blue.  Maybe the won't...they don't know.  But one thing's for sure...the infection will then be out there!  Do you really want that?

You mean the FBI is lying.

Yes...that's exactly what I mean.  Only they don't call it lying...they call it spinning.

If you frame the story as a 'cops-and-robbers' episode, you can get the audience on your side.  It's called framing.  But, we, the audience, can see through it.  

It's like weapons of mass destruction...if you claim someone, like Iraq, has then, maybe you can sell a war.  Hell, Cheney did it.  But the audience gets pissed off when it finds out it was a lie. The FBI is just trying to frame the story to look good for them.

I am on Apple Macbook

Stormee wrote:I am on Apple Macbook

I believe these are the iphones.

korban dallas wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

No, they don't in fact want to limit themselves to just one phone.  The FBI will not hesitate to use the software 'break-and-enter' on every phone where they want to invade the privacy of someone.

What is worse, nothing will prevent someone from selling the software on the open market.  It's not proprietary to the FBI.  You can be sure that some engineer will see profits and go out and sell it.

It's even worse...Apple has developed a system whereby if you try to break in more that xx times, the whole system will melt down and the data will die.  So the FBI wants Apple to give them the code to destroy that aspect of the phone's software.  So it really is destruction of the phone in the real sense.

The article says they want to use it on one phone.

Specifically, the FBI wants us to make a new version of the iPhone operating system, circumventing several important security features, and install it on an iPhone recovered during the investigation.

Put it  this way rags i have FBI computer forensic software on a cd somewhere not something normally available
 getting software is easy maliciously or other ways
once there is a patch that allows what the FBI want to do on "1" phone will be done on all phones regardless
its the nature of the beast i am afraid

I think the real reason is apple have used the easiest technique to make a good 'lock' is to not make the key.
I think there must be a user defined or randomised piece of data on each phone and apple don’t keep record of it.
they might have the algorithm that makes the lock but not all the variable to make the key.

with Jobs technical record it wouldn't surprise me that they use a non-coded solution

Apple has to take this position; they don't want to take the blame for the government snooping around on your phone or lose customers who fear they're being spied upon. The FBI, on the other hand, looks like it doesn't have investigators who are skilled enough to work around a roadblock like this.

Original Quill wrote:

Stormee wrote:I am on Apple Macbook

I believe these are the iphones.

yea but its a OS hack they want that presumably will work over the whole platform as the code(os) isn`t that much different in real terms as far as i know (not a apple expert)

Ben_Reilly wrote:Apple has to take this position; they don't want to take the blame for the government snooping around on your phone or lose customers who fear they're being spied upon. The FBI, on the other hand, looks like it doesn't have investigators who are skilled enough to work around a roadblock like this.

I think it's deeper than that, Ben.  What the FBI is asking Apple to do is destroy a part of its product.  You only stress the bad PR arising from this.  In fact, the FBI wants Apple to compromise it's security, and that in turn lessens the product.

This is that rare situation where the manufacturer sells precisely what the FBI doesn't want out there...security.  It's not like Apple is manufacturing nunchucks or brass knuckles.  They just sell privacy.  And we all want privacy...I mean, who wants someone invading their bedroom or bathroom, getting into their attorney-client files, medical files, or invading an author's next book?

So it's quite legitimate for the manufacturer to sell what the public lawfully wants.  But it happens to interfere with the FBI this time.  The FBI wants to trade-off leaving everybody naked, for this one investigation, which may not yield anything. And it's not just this one phone; once the technology is invented, all phones are vulnerable.

the idea that it is Privacy is false they already handed over all the cloud data without a second thought
 
the reason is they can't, they don’t have a solution.
I know I have made locks like this before. the equivalent of setting the tumbler inside a physical lock with your eyes shut and not pressing a copy of the key. Once it is shut it is shut. And even the maker doesn’t know what was set so can’t make the key.
 
they have built an algorithm to encrypt the data, the algorithm requires multiple variables (standard for encryption algorithms) at least one of them is either randomized and hardcoded into the hardware of the phone or is generated from a user input. I am thinking something in the lock screen probably generated from multiple settings and stored locally.

"For devices running iOS 8 or higher, Apple would not have the technical ability to do what the government requests – take possession of a password-protected device from the government and extract unencrypted user data from that device for the government."
The Federal Bureau of Investigation, clearly, wasn't satisfied with this answer. In the Farook case, presumably after trying all the other ways of getting at an iPhone user's data, it actually provided the judge with a technical description of what it wanted Apple to do. Here it is, cited in Judge Sheri Pym's order:
"Apple's reasonable technical assistance may include, but is not limited to: providing the FBI with a signed iPhone Software file, recovery bundle, or other Software Image File ("SIF") that can be loaded onto the SUBJECT DEVICE. The SIF will load and run from Random Access Memory and will not modify the iOS on the actual phone, the user data partition or system partition on the device's flash memory. The SIF will be coded by Apple with a unique identifier of the phone so that the SIF would only load and execute on the SUBJECT DEVICE. The SIF will be loaded via Device Firmware Upgrade ("DFU") mode, recovery mode, or other applicable mode available to the FBI."

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/comment/apples-fight-with-fbi-isnt-about-encryption-20160217-gmx5lg.html#ixzz40ZQENV4b
Follow us: @smh on Twitter | sydneymorningherald on Facebook

Further to that, the solution only works if there isn't a bios level lock. if there is then even if you managed to boot an alternate OS the data will be gibberish that you can’t translate without the key that doesn't exist.

Recently Dealt with a DELL machine with the same sort of locking system, it became a paper weight

veya_victaous wrote:

"For devices running iOS 8 or higher, Apple would not have the technical ability to do what the government requests – take possession of a password-protected device from the government and extract unencrypted user data from that device for the government."
The Federal Bureau of Investigation, clearly, wasn't satisfied with this answer. In the Farook case, presumably after trying all the other ways of getting at an iPhone user's data, it actually provided the judge with a technical description of what it wanted Apple to do. Here it is, cited in Judge Sheri Pym's order:
"Apple's reasonable technical assistance may include, but is not limited to: providing the FBI with a signed iPhone Software file, recovery bundle, or other Software Image File ("SIF") that can be loaded onto the SUBJECT DEVICE. The SIF will load and run from Random Access Memory and will not modify the iOS on the actual phone, the user data partition or system partition on the device's flash memory. The SIF will be coded by Apple with a unique identifier of the phone so that the SIF would only load and execute on the SUBJECT DEVICE. The SIF will be loaded via Device Firmware Upgrade ("DFU") mode, recovery mode, or other applicable mode available to the FBI."

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/comment/apples-fight-with-fbi-isnt-about-encryption-20160217-gmx5lg.html#ixzz40ZQENV4b
Follow us: @smh on Twitter | sydneymorningherald on Facebook

Further to that, the solution only works if there isn't a bios level lock. if there is then even if you managed to boot an alternate OS the data will be gibberish that you can’t translate without the key that doesn't exist.

Recently Dealt with a DELL machine with the same sort of locking system, it became a paper weight

Lol been on that merry go round many a time  :-)

Thank you to Quill and Korban, who explained the situation without being rude and dismissive.

Apple are being quite careful in their wording, but basically they're saying they don't trust the FBI.

The FBI can't force Apple to do this can they? How can they force someone to sit there and invent something which doesn't exist?

Raggamuffin wrote:Apple are being quite careful in their wording, but basically they're saying they don't trust the FBI.

No, they won't do what the FBI is demanding, which is destroy the security of their product.  Change the design...renege on promises...create a new product--that's what the FBI is demanding.

The FBI is demanding that Apple programmers actually sit down, write a new code, and create a back door into the product.  Apple has promised it's customers that there will be no backdoor.  Ergo, the FBI is demanding that change the product and that would be reneging on their promise.

The FBI is demanding a redesign.

Raggamuffin wrote:The FBI can't force Apple to do this can they? How can they force someone to sit there and invent something which doesn't exist?

Yes, technically the FBI can force Apple to do this.  Here we do things by rule of law, and the FBI has gone before a Federal Magistrate and asked that it (the Court) lawfully order Apple to redesign it's product to compromise its security.

Apple is presently appealing that order, and has been given a stay of the order of a week, allowing them time to file the appeal.

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:The FBI can't force Apple to do this can they? How can they force someone to sit there and invent something which doesn't exist?

Yes, technically the FBI can force Apple to do this.  Here we do things by rule of law, and the FBI has gone before a Federal Magistrate and asked that it (the Court) lawfully order Apple to redesign it's product to compromise its security.

Apple is presently appealing that order, and has been given a stay of the order of a week, allowing them time to file the appeal.

Are you sure they can be forced by Law to invent design a new "app/hack " because that's what it is they seem to want
and to be honest i suspect apple can do this already anyway and that`s reasonable assumption its there software after all

I'm just wondering how someone can be forced to invent something. Do they point a gun at them until they do it?

Original Quill wrote:

sassy wrote:


They don't seem to understand that the software does not exist, will have to be made for them, and once it is made there will be no keeping a lid on it, and all smartphones will be at risk.  Thank goodness Apple is standing up to them.  As I said, losing our freedom in the name of freedom is pretty bloody pointless.

That's why I changed the metaphor to the small-pox example.  Some people don't realize they are asking for Apple to invent a virus that will destroy the product.

Not a "virus" a Back door its a subtle but important distinction

Raggamuffin wrote:I'm just wondering how someone can be forced to invent something. Do they point a gun at them until they do it?

my point exactly

although the task is not beyond there capability and that`s the whole point if a bunch of apple programmers can write a secure back-door in to the OS for the FBI i give it a year before the software is in the wild and anybody can get it

Does anybody watch THE BLACK LIST
last nights episode was based around this very subject

watch it

korban dallas wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Yes, technically the FBI can force Apple to do this.  Here we do things by rule of law, and the FBI has gone before a Federal Magistrate and asked that it (the Court) lawfully order Apple to redesign it's product to compromise its security.

Apple is presently appealing that order, and has been given a stay of the order of a week, allowing them time to file the appeal.

Are you sure they can be forced by Law to invent design a new "app/hack " because that's what it is they seem to want
and to be honest i suspect apple can do this already anyway and that`s reasonable assumption its there software after all

The law is flexible, and this presents a novel situation.  

The FBI is pursuing a legal order as a result of Apple's refusal and explanation that to do what the FBI wants would amount to "invent[ing] or design[ing] a new 'app/hack'".  The fact that the order demands an affirmative action, rather that just a relinquishing of something, poses a novel situation.

Apple has three issues here, as I see it.  One is the one Ben raised, to give in would be contrary to the interests of customers.  The customers are seeking privacy and security.  Apple is in a position to stand in the way, and on behalf of its customers, is fulfilling that role. That is what Apple promised to its customers, and that is what they are entitled to receive.

The second is that the order demands a permanent alteration of the product, and Apple cannot be forced to manufacture what it doesn't want to manufacture  Nor should it be required to change the design of the product it has manufactured.  Designing a back door would constitute such a requirement.

The third is the involuntary servitude aspect...a Federal Magistrate is ordering a party to affirmatively perform work without compensation; even with compensation, wouldn't that be in violation of the 13th-Amendment (abolishing slavery)?  Citizens United tells us that corporations are persons and citizens, right?  Well then, they cannot be involuntarily compelled to do what they don't want to do as citizens.

The order is wrong-headed in these ways: 1) it misunderstands the nature of what is being asked; 2) it arbitrarily demands a commercial product be altered; and, 3) it violates the US Constitution in mandating involuntary servitude.  There are peripheral issues, such as mandating a party to break it's contract with consumers.  But these can be incorporated into the above three.

i wonder if apple could sue the government
because if such a alteration to the core software was ordered and implemented

Apples market share and stock price will plummet, as people stop buying apple products for fear of privacy issues

korban dallas wrote:i wonder if apple could sue the government
because if such a alteration to the core software was ordered and implemented

Apples market share and stock price will plummet, as people stop buying apple products for fear of privacy issues

...so there are clearly damages to be shown.

I agree.  It would be in a civil suit, for recovery of the loss.  Gd idea. Contact Apple! Lol.

One could use the model of the Bivens case:

Wiki wrote:Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), was a case in which the United States Supreme Court ruled that an implied cause of action existed for an individual whose Fourth Amendment freedom from unreasonable search and seizures had been violated by federal agents. The victim of such a deprivation could sue for the violation of the Amendment itself, despite the lack of any federal statute authorizing such a suit. The existence of a remedy for the violation was implied from the importance of the right violated.

The big question would be, does Apple have standing, given that the 4th Amendment violation would run to the consumer, not the manufacturer?  There might be a theory around surrogacy somehow.  Bivens also suggests that there is a cause of action for other kinds of Constitutional violations.  

I would have to look it up, as a lot of law has passed under the bridge since 1971.

Original Quill wrote:

korban dallas wrote:i wonder if apple could sue the government
because if such a alteration to the core software was ordered and implemented

Apples market share and stock price will plummet, as people stop buying apple products for fear of privacy issues

...so there are clearly damages to be shown.  

I agree.  It would be in a civil suit, for recovery of the loss.  Gd idea.  Contact Apple!  Lol.

One could use the model of the Bivens case:

Wiki wrote:Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), was a case in which the United States Supreme Court ruled that an implied cause of action existed for an individual whose Fourth Amendment freedom from unreasonable search and seizures had been violated by federal agents. The victim of such a deprivation could sue for the violation of the Amendment itself, despite the lack of any federal statute authorizing such a suit. The existence of a remedy for the violation was implied from the importance of the right violated.

The big question would be, does Apple have standing, given that the 4th Amendment violation would run to the consumer, not the manufacturer?  There might be a theory around surrogacy somehow.  Bivens also suggests that there is a cause of action for other kinds of Constitutional violations.  

I would have to look it up, as a lot of law has passed under the bridge since 1971.

i would say yes
because they have the rights to the software. the consumer only licences it ,they update it and maintain the systems that use it and they are them self`s legally liable to ensure the security of there systems

korban dallas wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

...so there are clearly damages to be shown.  

I agree.  It would be in a civil suit, for recovery of the loss.  Gd idea.  Contact Apple!  Lol.

One could use the model of the Bivens case:



The big question would be, does Apple have standing, given that the 4th Amendment violation would run to the consumer, not the manufacturer?  There might be a theory around surrogacy somehow.  Bivens also suggests that there is a cause of action for other kinds of Constitutional violations.  

I would have to look it up, as a lot of law has passed under the bridge since 1971.

i would say yes
because they have the rights to the software. the consumer only licences it ,they update it and maintain the systems that use it and they are them self`s legally liable to ensure the security of there systems

What you are alluding to are contractual ramifications. Here, we would be seeking to redress the invasion of the phone.

The 4th-Amendment warrant, I presume, goes to the data, not the software.  The issue with the software has to do with accessing the data.  The damage is associated with 'how' the data are obtained.

I've seen police knock down walls executing a warrant.  So there is often collateral damage.  I've often wondered how property owners collect for such damage.  I suppose a standard property damage lawsuit, with prior claim because it's a state entity.

Keep in mind there are still two more issues.

Donald Trump has chimed in with his opinion, siding with the FBI and calling for a boycott of Apple if it does not give in.

I wonder if Apple could make Trump pay for the damages to the product?  Think along the lines of economic coercion. Something like, tortious interference with prospective economic advantage. Consider how well the elements fit:

Lectric Law Library wrote:The elements of that tort of are: '(1) an economic relationship between [the plaintiff and some third person] containing the probability of future economic benefit to the [plaintiff], (2) knowledge by the defendant of the existence of the relationship, (3) intentional acts on the part of the defendant designed to disrupt the relationship, (4) actual disruption of the relationship, [and] (5) damages to the plaintiff proximately caused by the acts of the defendant.' (Buckaloo v. Johnson (1975) 14 Cal.3d 815, 827.)

The claim would be a relationship between Apple and it's customers, benefits in the form of sales/losses, knowledge that Apple is in the business, and organization of an a boycott with the intent to destroy Apple's business, and of course, Apple would have to be giving up on its iphone as a result of the economic coercion brought about by Trump. Great legal theory. I used it when I was suing Morton Thiokol after the crash of the space shuttle Challenger.

Damages would have to be in the $-billions.  But, hey, Donald Trump's worth $10-billion.

Original Quill wrote:Donald Trump has chimed in with his opinion, siding with the FBI and calling for a boycott of Apple if it does not give in.

I wonder if Apple could make Trump pay for the damages to the product?  Think along the lines of economic coercion.  Something like, tortious interference with prospective economic advantage.  Consider how well the elements fit:

Lectric Law Library wrote:The elements of that tort of are: '(1) an economic relationship between [the plaintiff and some third person] containing the probability of future economic benefit to the [plaintiff], (2) knowledge by the defendant of the existence of the relationship, (3) intentional acts on the part of the defendant designed to disrupt the relationship, (4) actual disruption of the relationship, [and] (5) damages to the plaintiff proximately caused by the acts of the defendant.' (Buckaloo v. Johnson (1975) 14 Cal.3d 815, 827.)

The claim would be a relationship between Apple and it's customers, benefits in the form of sales/losses, knowledge that Apple is in the business, and organization of an a boycott with the intent to destroy Apple's business, and of course, Apple would have to be giving up on its iphone as a result of the economic coercion brought about by Trump.  Great legal theory.  I used it when I was suing Morton Thiokol after the crash of the space shuttle Challenger.

Damages would have to be in the $-billions.  But, hey, Donald Trump's worth $10-billion.

It wouldn't be an enforced boycott though, and people don't have to listen to Trump, so no ...

Raggamuffin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:Donald Trump has chimed in with his opinion, siding with the FBI and calling for a boycott of Apple if it does not give in.

I wonder if Apple could make Trump pay for the damages to the product?  Think along the lines of economic coercion.  Something like, tortious interference with prospective economic advantage.  Consider how well the elements fit:



The claim would be a relationship between Apple and it's customers, benefits in the form of sales/losses, knowledge that Apple is in the business, and organization of an a boycott with the intent to destroy Apple's business, and of course, Apple would have to be giving up on its iphone as a result of the economic coercion brought about by Trump.  Great legal theory.  I used it when I was suing Morton Thiokol after the crash of the space shuttle Challenger.

Damages would have to be in the $-billions.  But, hey, Donald Trump's worth $10-billion.

It wouldn't be an enforced boycott though, and people don't have to listen to Trump, so no ...

I believe you are right.  The problem is causation between Trump's actions and the decision to capitulate to the FBI coercion.  Was his call for a boycott a factor?

But it's my best shot at a theory, tho....so far.  Lol.

Could this not be sorted out in a controlled manner whereby any software which is developed is used only on that phone and then destroyed?

If there is info on there relating to the shooting and which could to catch any accomplices or find any info relating to possible future attacks, it's seems awful that it can't be accessed.

Raggamuffin wrote:Could this not be sorted out in a controlled manner whereby any software which is developed is used only on that phone and then destroyed?

If there is info on there relating to the shooting and which could to catch any accomplices or find any info relating to possible future attacks, it's seems awful that it can't be accessed.

Not really because its the software to decrypt  the phone thats the problem not the actual phone it self ragg`s

And the software can`t be secure and will become available in the wild just as happened on the "black list" with a piece of NSA sofware that was leaked that gave unlimited access to any web connected camera and criminals got a hold of it ect ect

ok i will concede its a tv show however the premise is completely valid 



i do not believe for one second apple can not unlock the phone i unlock iphones all the time
but that`s not the issue
The issue is the FBI want a back door built in to the core software so They can access and decrypt phones Remotely

i have no problem with the FBi unlocking/decrypting  phones they have in there possession of suspected criminals, with a proper court order or with phone tapping of the same with the proper legal authorisation
however the ability to do this "remotely "of any phone is inviting not only abuse but disaster

imagine if a terrorist got hold of that kind of access it would be catastrophic and its not beyond the realms of possibility
12 year old kids have been cracking and hacking software in hours of getting it for years

way to dangerous a precedent to set as well the government can compel a company to install what is technicaly spyware surveillance ware on on there equipment not just iphone`s ,pads,pods same goes for all the other manufactures

slippery slope

If Apple can unlock the phone without creating new software, why don't they just do it?

Alternatively, there must be hackers out there who can do it - they seem to get into everything else!

I read that the cloud password had been reset or something after the phone was seized, but I didn't understand that either.

Raggamuffin wrote:If Apple can unlock the phone without creating new software, why don't they just do it?

Alternatively, there must be hackers out there who can do it - they seem to get into everything else!

I read that the cloud password had been reset or something after the phone was siezed, but I didn't understand that either.

there is a lot of things that don`t make sense about this to be honest i suspect there is a lot we are not being told
especially when you concider the NSA have been intercepting all calls since around 9/11 that`s what there big new data centre was for