[url]http://www.engadget.com/2015/10/23/apple-doj-iphone/[/url]
[quote=Endadget]The Department of Justice is trying to get Apple to unlock a defendant's iPhone. While Apple has stated that it can technically bypass the phone's passcode security, it has so far refused to do so for various reasons. So the DOJ has come up with a new strategy, force Apple to comply because it licenses the software on the phone. Because of that, the DOJ contends that the iPhone maker actually has a relationship with the phone that's currently evidence in a case. In a reply to Apple's response to the court order to unlock the phone, the government states, "Apple cannot reap the legal benefits of licensing its software in this manner and then later disclaim any ownership or obligation to assist law enforcement when that same software plays a critical role in thwarting execution of a search warrant." In other words, it's your software Apple, not the defendant's, unlock it.[/quote]
I honestly would not be surprised if Apple started allowing flashing of other things again as was the case with early iDevices up to the iPhone 3GS (or maybe it was the 4?) just to stop the DOJ from pulling this shit.
didn't they give up on this earlier
as it stands, the US is under intense pressure from the EU already for data storage, if apple went ahead and did this, the EU would start bringing out the hammer
Isn't this just a spin on one of the things that just outright killed blackberry in some markets? Backdoors for countries.
Blackberry died because it relied entirely on corporations using their devices, while doing nothing to compete with Androids and iPhones until it was too late and the only people that still used BBs entered the workforce in the 90s.
[QUOTE=Sableye;48970503]didn't they give up on this earlier
as it stands, the US is under intense pressure from the EU already for data storage, if apple went ahead and did this, the EU would start bringing out the hammer[/QUOTE]
People here are already doing that. Facebook is in the process of being sued but there may be other lawsuits in the works already.
Huh, It sounds like apple is saying it already has a backdoor. Regardless. I think if DOJ was to get one added it would quickly leak as theses things do and suddenly you hear a new story about your phone being hijacked by a hacker and all your personal information put on the internet.
So, This should be good.
So it sounds like on the newer OS Apple totally locks down the phone. They were forced to tell the DoJ that it was 'technically feasible' 'if so, whether compliance with the proposed order would be unduly burdensome'
Sounds like the DoJ is going to force apple to do open heart surgery on the phone to get what they want.
[QUOTE=Ridge;48970711]Blackberry died because it relied entirely on corporations using their devices, while doing nothing to compete with Androids and iPhones until it was too late and the only people that still used BBs entered the workforce in the 90s.[/QUOTE]
Nonsense, there was this crazy chick at my highschool who got a new blackberry and decided the best place to open it was in a class at a school where they confiscate phones until your parents come to pick them up (half the teachers didn't give a shit though). She was a complete nut though.
I've been hearing rumors that IH8Sn0w has stumbled upon a way to unlock iCloud locked iphones / Flash the OS and install other things onto newer iPhones recently, so maybe he's stumbled on their back door or something?
The DOJ isn't saying that apple should have a backdoor because it owns the system (apple already said it has the backdoor)
The DOJ is trying to force apple to use the backdoor and do that in terms of apple actually owning the software and merely licensing it to end users.
Apple on the other hand is claiming that the device isn't theirs and it was the end users.
Mind you, if apple complies this will actually have massive ramifications in other markets as well. It sets a precedent that the company owns software and the user is merely a licensee of it. Something some companies have been trying to push for, for a while now (game companies being a good example)
[quote]The government's strategy is a reaction to Apple's refusal to comply with a court order to unlock an iPhone 5s. In its response to the order Apple lawyers stated, "forcing Apple to extract data in this case, absent clear legal authority to do so, could threaten the trust between Apple and its customers and substantially tarnish the Apple brand."[/quote]
Apple defies court order to unlock phone even after acknowledging they could. I mean really now. Come on.
Spin it anyway you want, but a court order is a court order. I appreciate Apple's stand for privacy and think that we should have stronger security, but when you admit that you have a backdoor to bypass user security and then defy a court order, I have no empathy for you.
[QUOTE=QuinnithXD;48972248]I've been hearing rumors that IH8Sn0w has stumbled upon a way to unlock iCloud locked iphones / Flash the OS and install other things onto newer iPhones recently, so maybe he's stumbled on their back door or something?[/QUOTE]
He has an iBoot exploit that he uses for development purposes (it's quite a low level exploit, so yes, in theory it could unlock an iCloud locked device) but won't release it because it'd otherwise be trivial for Apple to patch it.
[QUOTE=Code3Response;48974593]Apple defies court order to unlock phone even after acknowledging they could. I mean really now. Come on.
Spin it anyway you want, but a court order is a court order. I appreciate Apple's stand for privacy and think that we should have stronger security, but when you admit that you have a backdoor to bypass user security and then defy a court order, I have no empathy for you.[/QUOTE]
if we never defied court orders we wouldn't make as much civil progress as we have
[QUOTE=Code3Response;48974593]Apple defies court order to unlock phone even after acknowledging they could. I mean really now. Come on.
Spin it anyway you want, but a court order is a court order. I appreciate Apple's stand for privacy and think that we should have stronger security, but when you admit that you have a backdoor to bypass user security and then defy a court order, I have no empathy for you.[/QUOTE]
But it's not Apple's property. It's the defendant's property. The defendant paid for and owned said iPhone. If Apple unlocks this phone, it sets that precedent that you don't own anything you think you do. The manufacturer does, because it's proprietary software that the manufacturer created, thus, you're merely borrowing it.
The DOJ's argument is this: Apple designed the iPhone and created the software it runs on. They have a backdoor into that software. The DOJ is trying to say that since Apple has the rights to that software, they technically own the phone, and them not unlocking the phone is holding back a federal investigation.
Let me put it this way. You would no longer be buying an iPhone. You'd be paying a one-time fee to borrow that iPhone, and Apple would have the right to take it back from you, lock it, unlock it, etc, because they own the iPhone, not you.
You need to realize that Apple's "Backdoor" is really just updating/changing the firmware in the usual ways.
Useless in iOS 8 however, because the password is required to decrypt the storage.
[QUOTE=ossumsauce;48977456]But it's not Apple's property. It's the defendant's property. The defendant paid for and owned said iPhone. If Apple unlocks this phone, it sets that precedent that you don't own anything you think you do. The manufacturer does, because it's proprietary software that the manufacturer created, thus, you're merely borrowing it.
The DOJ's argument is this: Apple designed the iPhone and created the software it runs on. They have a backdoor into that software. The DOJ is trying to say that since Apple has the rights to that software, they technically own the phone, and them not unlocking the phone is holding back a federal investigation.
Let me put it this way. You would no longer be buying an iPhone. You'd be paying a one-time fee to borrow that iPhone, and Apple would have the right to take it back from you, lock it, unlock it, etc, because they own the iPhone, not you.[/QUOTE]
This actually isn't far from the arrangement which currently exists, sadly. Lots of carriers subsidize cell phone costs in exchange for, essentially, the ability to simply indefinitely loan you your phone, and I'm sure it's right there in the contract if you look. There are [i]lots[/i] of people walking around with cellphones that they don't quite own, and I wouldn't be surprised to see that it was a majority. It's not quite congruent with this legal case, as it would be the carrier that owns your phone rather than Apple, but you get my point.
This isn't even a new thing. It's how things have worked since the clamshell days, and honestly it made more sense back then. The cellular phone was more an incidental part of the process, the thing you needed to connect to the cell network, rather than the point in and of itself. Nowadays, as cell phones become more and more akin to all-in-one digital organizers and, let's be honest, personal computers, it's getting pretty goddamn creepy.
I've never really understood this crap about software being some magical entity that you borrow, as opposed to own. I'm no lawyer, but how can you own a piece of hardware yet not own the copy of the software?
[QUOTE=sasherz;48978997]I've never really understood this crap about software being some magical entity that you borrow, as opposed to own. I'm no lawyer, but how can you own a piece of hardware yet not own the copy of the software?[/QUOTE]
Because software is, by its very nature, intangible. It's not a physical thing, but something arranged in a certain pattern. If you actually owned the software itself, the pattern, then you'd have the same rights as the creators had, to distribute and copy it as you saw fit. People who make money from software they create don't exactly like that idea. Even DRM-free software that you pay for might tell you on a colloquial level that you own it forever, but really they mean you own a license to a copy of that software that you can use forever and, if they're lenient, you're allowed to put on your other devices.
Ultimately i think the phone should be unlocked. I mean, it is a criminal investigation. I just don't think Apple should be the one unlocking it, if they even can.
[QUOTE=ossumsauce;48979827]Ultimately i think the phone should be unlocked. I mean, it is a criminal investigation. I just don't think Apple should be the one unlocking it, if they even can.[/QUOTE]
So then the defendant has his 5th amendment rights revoked because it's an investigation? That makes no sense at all. The DoJ is just upset because finally consumers are catching up the the standards of security that the government has been using to protect itself for years. Now that the standard for encryption is this high, it isn't worth the resources to break the encryption on something as benign as a criminal investigation.
[QUOTE=wraithcat;48974533]The DOJ isn't saying that apple should have a backdoor because it owns the system (apple already said it has the backdoor)
The DOJ is trying to force apple to use the backdoor and do that in terms of apple actually owning the software and merely licensing it to end users.
Apple on the other hand is claiming that the device isn't theirs and it was the end users.
Mind you, if apple complies this will actually have massive ramifications in other markets as well. It sets a precedent that the company owns software and the user is merely a licensee of it. Something some companies have been trying to push for, for a while now (game companies being a good example)[/QUOTE]
Uh don't know what video games you've been buying lately but it's been a legal precedent for quite some time that you do not own the software, you are just licensed to use it.
[editline]25th October 2015[/editline]
[QUOTE=Revenge282;48979985]So then the defendant has his 5th amendment rights revoked because it's an investigation? That makes no sense at all. The DoJ is just upset because finally consumers are catching up the the standards of security that the government has been using to protect itself for years. Now that the standard for encryption is this high, it isn't worth the resources to break the encryption on something as benign as a criminal investigation.[/QUOTE]
A criminal investigation is something you consider benign? Lol okay.
[QUOTE=InvaderNouga;48980189]A criminal investigation is something you consider benign? Lol okay.[/QUOTE]
The can of worms that is about to be opened pales in comparison to the case at hand. No domestic criminal case exempts that.
Hell, no case at all exempts that. It's a surrender of rights for the people.
[QUOTE=Revenge282;48980890]The can of worms that is about to be opened pales in comparison to the case at hand. No domestic criminal case exempts that.
Hell, no case at all exempts that. It's a surrender of rights for the people.[/QUOTE]
Surrender of rights to require companies like Apple to comply with things like unlocking phones in criminal investigations? Your tin foil hat is showing.
[QUOTE=Revenge282;48979985]So then the defendant has his 5th amendment rights revoked because it's an investigation? That makes no sense at all. The DoJ is just upset because finally consumers are catching up the the standards of security that the government has been using to protect itself for years. Now that the standard for encryption is this high, it isn't worth the resources to break the encryption on something as benign as a criminal investigation.[/QUOTE]
Do you even... know what the 5th amendment is?
It means you don't have to self-incriminate. Not that the authorities cannot investigate to whatever limits they are allowed by law. If the authorities find a way to unlock your phone to search for evidence pertaining to the case at hand, they are well within their rights to do so. You just don't have to be the one to unlock it for them. THAT is a breach of your 5th amendment rights.
[QUOTE=wraithcat;48974533]Apple on the other hand is claiming that the device isn't theirs and it was the end users.[/QUOTE]
Remember all that stuff about DRMs, I was under the impression it was "theirs" because of their agreement with the user.
[QUOTE=ossumsauce;48981104]Do you even... know what the 5th amendment is?
It means you don't have to self-incriminate. Not that the authorities cannot investigate to whatever limits they are allowed by law. If the authorities find a way to unlock your phone to search for evidence pertaining to the case at hand, they are well within their rights to do so. You just don't have to be the one to unlock it for them. THAT is a breach of your 5th amendment rights.[/QUOTE]
I understand what the 5th is fully. But if Apple isn't going to unlock it, the only other thing/person that could is the owner/defendant (this is what the post I quoted was saying). The only reason DoJ is going after Apple so hard is because this is their last resort since they can't compel the defendant to self-incriminate by providing the information.
If the government wants to do the work of cracking it themselves, then they should, by all means. But dragging Apple into the mess by the lose idea that they "own" the data, is pretty asinine...
[editline]25th October 2015[/editline]
[QUOTE=InvaderNouga;48980990]Surrender of rights to require companies like Apple to comply with things like unlocking phones in criminal investigations? Your tin foil hat is showing.[/QUOTE]
Why should Apple be involved in the slightest with this investigation? There is literally no other scenario where this happens.
[QUOTE=Revenge282;48982731]I understand what the 5th is fully. But if Apple isn't going to unlock it, the only other thing/person that could is the owner/defendant (this is what the post I quoted was saying). The only reason DoJ is going after Apple so hard is because this is their last resort since they can't compel the defendant to self-incriminate by providing the information.
If the government wants to do the work of cracking it themselves, then they should, by all means. But dragging Apple into the mess by the lose idea that they "own" the data, is pretty asinine...
[editline]25th October 2015[/editline]
Why should Apple be involved in the slightest with this investigation? There is literally no other scenario where this happens.[/QUOTE]
Because it's their software that is preventing authorities from accessing the information needed for investigation? You probably wouldn't be as against it if it were say a child pornography investigation.
[QUOTE=InvaderNouga;48983217]Because it's their software that is preventing authorities from accessing the information needed for investigation? You probably wouldn't be as against it if it were say a child pornography investigation.[/QUOTE]
I would still hold my position, no matter what the charges are. It is a very dangerous precedent to set. Like I said one criminal case is not worth the loss that it will bring across the board.
Their software is not "preventing" the authorities from their investigation. It is the equivalent of bringing [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joan_Daemen"]Joan Daemen[/URL] and [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vincent_Rijmen"]Vincent Rijmen[/URL] (the creators of AES) into every court case with encrypted information. The same reason we don't bring gun manufacturers to court over what someone does with their products. (Or car makers, etc.)
Before I get twisted any further: No, I do not condone child pornography.
I don't understand, is it supposed to be a good thing that Apple is refusing the court order?
It's an investigation, not some warrantless search. How is it different from when a defendant has a lock or a safe that needs to be opened, and law enforcement gets manufacturer's help? What difference does it make in that scenario whether the defendant owns the lock or is simply licenced to use it?
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
