Customer Letter - Apple

Discussion in 'Miscellaneous' started by ILTG, Feb 17, 2016.

  1. What do you think of this?

    In light of the San Bernardino attack, the FBI has asked Apple to disable the 10-failed-passcode-attempts... thingy, so they can attempt a 'brute force' unlock. (Try every possible combination)

    Here is Apple's response.
  2. *sigh*
    So biased...
    Dufne likes this.
  3. IMO it's a press piece. Apple wants to reassure it's customers that it's committed to security.

    (google "apple breach")

    And meh if some unnamed persons at the FBI asked for something they can't have. That isn't something to be up in arms about.
  4. I'm just gonna suggest that you all keep this civil, we don't want it to get out of hand. We've had WAY too many of these threads recently.
    607 and ShelLuser like this.
  5. I'm not much of an Apple fan; I consider some products a wee bit too overpriced for my liking and in other cases I also question their business model. A small example: in the Netherlands an electronic store such as Apple is required (under Dutch law) to provide at least 2 years worth of warranty. However, the stores only give you 1; if you want more you need to buy an extended warranty plan (iCare). And if you tell 'm that this is against the law then yah... Then nothing.

    Having said that I do admire their technology. One of my family members is an Apple user and some of the things he showed me are pretty slick. Like the option to simply update / re-install your OS merely by connecting your laptop to the Internet: Apple will recognize the serial number and use that to verify your access privileges.

    Its not all bad.

    So back to this issue... I think Apple is right on the mark with this and I also support their decision.

    Encryption, or the right to protect your own electronic material, is a very valuable good. Governments (not merely the US) have already tried dozens of time to get their fingers behind it, obviously under the given reason that it was for 'the greater good' but how can it be good if the government spies on your private belongings?

    There is a very good reason why most, if not all, law enforcement agencies in civilized countries need a search warrant before they're allowed to tap into someones private conversations, whether it by phone or e-mail: Innocent until proven guilty.

    When it comes to tapping into a phone line or reading someones e-mail then the government will have to show their search warrant to a service provider, otherwise it's no go.

    And governments have already tried it many times to outlaw the right to encryption or to mandate the inclusion of backdoors into current algorithms. Its not without reason why many people (myself included) feel so strongly about the need for public encryption tools such as GnuPG and OpenSSL (to name but two).

    To put this differently: our governments (I'm now specifically referring to the US as well as mine (Dutch)) have a history when it comes to their attempts in denying our rights to encryption.

    So with that in mind I'm also quite convinced that when given the proper tools which will eliminate any "search warrant requirement obstacles" (the service providers which will deny access without a search warrant) then we can kiss our privacy goodbye. And that is a very dangerous path.

    The thing is... It's not a matter if you got something to hide or not, that's totally unimportant. What's important is how the others who gain access to your stuff are going to use it.

    Put differently: who is going to check on the government when they basically already got full access?

    An argument I once used in an (ICT related) forum about data security and government access. The topic at hand was how a kill switch on a phone could be triggered based on certain phrases.

    So here I am calling my friend, we talk and I mention: "Let's bomb the base tonight!". The next moment my connection is cut and 5 minutes later I'm surrounded by law enforcement due to suspicious activities regarding terrorism. Outraged I yell at an officer: "What nonsense is this? I got a dance party to go to... Acid you know!".

    "Oh, so poison is involved too eh? Tell it to the judge you darn terrist!".

    For the younger generation amongst us:

    And with that in mind...

    Besides; this is the FBI we're talking about. How hard could it be for them to simply copy the flash ROM's inside the phone and then start bruteforcing the copies?

    I honestly can't help suspect that their request involves much more than to merely gain access to this particular phone. As mentioned above: they have an history when it comes to the "freedom of encryption".
    607, ILTG and SoulPunisher like this.
  6. :)

    I've watched a lot of movies. They lead me to believe that government agencies can already access the data. Those movies also portray overworked programmers and technicians in messy offices. I can only imagine the stress that real world technicians undergo each time Apple patches and they have to update their hacks. Having an official build from Apple would speed that up.

    And yeah, if a politician or government agency promises the software will only be used for good, you can trust them. If they lie you could totally do something about it. Like stage a protest, or vote republican or something...depending on the movie.
  7. I trust the government to use it for investigating, now. But later, 5, 10 years down the road, people are going to abuse it. I want my privacy. I don't have anything to hide, but I want my privacy.
  8. This is the first move by Apple I've been able to get behind in a long time.

    If it was Google in this position, I don't know if they'd deny the request or accept it. They're weird when it comes to stuff like this.

    The thing is, they won't use it just for investigating.

    Besides, nobody should have access to power like that. Not even people who want to use it against terrorists. Especially not the US government - who knows what the hell kind of idiocies they'd use it for.
    Patr1cV, 607, ShelLuser and 1 other person like this.
  9. Al hail the mighty droid even though apple is more superior lol
    HxCami10 likes this.
  10. They might use it for investigating now (doubt it). Down the road, hell no. They will use it for anything they want. No government should have access to my things.
  11. Oh no.

    Not this.

    Please no.

    Just stop the unrelated-ness and the attempt to incite an argument.


    FoxyRavenger, Patr1cV, 607 and 2 others like this.
  12. At this point, I wouldn't say it's fair to compare one flagship phone to another. They're all too close to each other and each has their advantages and disadvantages. That is unless it's a particularly sub-par flagship like the HTC One M9. Comparing a Droid Turbo to a Galaxy S6 to an iPhone 6 won't actually give you a clear winner. They all have advantages and disadvantages to each other and it's really about the type of user that you are and what you're looking to get out of your phone.
  13. I care more about the people's safety than protecting whatever information may be on one's phone. If something is so important to you, a mobile device may not be the best place to keep it. I'd rather the world have a few less terrorists and increased safety in United States, even if it means a little less privacy.
  14. I'd rather have my freedoms intact than letting a government with an ever-increasing insatiable desire for control take them away. You can fight terrorism without taking freedoms away from people (most of the 'lets fight terrorism by taking [insert thing here] from you' are just excuses to spy on you anyway). Even letting the FBI just use the backdoor once is an open invitation to letting them use it all the time and letting them spy on people even more.

    EDIT: On the ''lets fight terrorism by taking [insert thing here] from you' are just excuses to spy on you anyway' note, I just thought I'd point out I am no conspiracy theorist. I'm just sceptical of world leaders when they say 'tracking your internet history fights terrorism': if I can go buy a secure VPN and mask my internet activities and giving the government no way of knowing what I'm doing, every terrorist with half a brain and a bit of computer know-how can too.
    607, ILTG, ShelLuser and 1 other person like this.
  15. I know I'm responding to an older discussion which has more or less passed a bit but in the mean time I learned something new which - in my opinion - sheds a whole new light on this case.

    Here's the thing: one of the reasons why this demand was made is because the FBI screwed up themselves.

    One of the first things they did once they had confiscated this device was to change the accounts iCloud password. This directly resulted in blocking any options to let it make an automatic backup. In all fairness: such an automatic backup doesn't necessarily provide access to all the data on the device, but would most definitely give access to all the obvious targets.

    SO yeah, I think there's a whole lot more to this story than we're being told. Why do I bring this up? Obviously I'm biased and it's not merely to shed some new light on this.

    Remember: with these cases it's not important if you have something to hide or not, what matters is how the party who's looking into your data is going to use it. Well, if the FBI manages to shoot themselves in the foot like this then I really have a hard time trusting them with global iPhone access.
    Dr_Chocolate14, ILTG and 607 like this.
  16. This part saddens me:

    But I highly appreciate the rest of the letter.
  17. So the FBI has employees which make tech mistakes. Easy to understand with how quickly tech changes. I can understand why they're asking for help from the companies which make the tech.

    What would you recommend as an alternative solution?
  18. Why? Not being rude/cocky or anything here, I genuinely want to know why it saddens you.
    NathanRP, 607 and ILTG like this.
  19. I think the "We have no sympathy for terrorists" was unnecessary to share and will only stir hard feelings. Which does not help anybody. It was good how they added the mourning and stuff to make sure the public knew they did care, but that last sentence doesn't do any good, I think.
  20. I don't think anyone will get hard feelings on them saying they have no sympathy for terrorists - besides terrorists, obviously, but if they were going to go and kill people over that happening they'd do it because of government leaders saying that same thing (which has been happening for the past 16 years anyway).