Should Apple help the FBI access info locked inside iPhones?

http://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/news/2016/02/16/apple-san-bernardino-iphone-magistrate-order/80478844/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

As you may or may not be aware, the FBI has not yet been able to get to information stored inside the iPhones of the San Bernardino terrorists.



A court has ordered Apple to do so, but Apple is saying they don't want to give the gov't access to entire phone. They are fighting the court order.



Thoughts?



Personally, I don't think Apple should do this.

I'm struggling to understand why Apple would have to provide the government with the key. Would it be such a big deal to bring the phone to Apple, have them unlock it, and then the government has the information but not the key? If giving the government the key is what is at the heart of this debate, it seems like there are ways around it that can still satisfy the need for information in this case.

SpiffCoug wrote:

A court has ordered Apple to do so, but Apple is saying they don't want to give the gov't access to entire phone. They are fighting the court order.

As I read it, the issue at hand is Apple giving the government the key to open such phones, at least that's what the article you linked seemed to be saying.

Absolutely not, in fact, if I had my druthers Apple wouldn't be able to get into their phones if locked.

Sammich wrote:

A court has ordered Apple to do so, but Apple is saying they don't want to give the gov't access to entire phone. They are fighting the court order.

As I read it, the issue at hand is Apple giving the government the key to open such phones, at least that's what the article you linked seemed to be saying.

Not just that, but it's a key that doesn't exist. The court order is for Apple to create a key that doesn't presently exist to bypass encryption for any and all iOS phones, and then give that key to the FBI who promises they will only use it this one time.



As for why the FBI can't just give the phone to Apple, my guess is that it creates a chain-of-custody issue if the FBI ever wants to use the phone data in a subsequent criminal case.



I think the FBI is over-stepping, and I can't believe a judge is really contemplating ordering Apple to create a software tool that doesn't exist for the government's use.

On the other side, I do agree with Charles Krauthammer that Apple is pretty deplorable for how they are handling this. Going public with the fight in their "letter to the public" will have, at best, a deminimus impact on the case and whether or not the judge issues the order and whether or not the various appeals courts will uphold that order.



The purpose of the letter to the public is to advertise "Hey terrorists, drug lord, and other various criminals! Guess what! We have a phone that even the FBI admits they can't get into!" I still think Apple is in the right to fight this, but I'd have more respect for Apples' fight if they weren't using it to advertise.

I know the admin is saying they're not asking Apple to give them the ability to unlock all iPhones, just this one individual one. But it doesn't work like that.



Does this analogy work?



Apple is saying these iPhones are like houses. And while every house has different locks on it, we could install a new lock on every house that would allow one key to open every lock.



The Gov't is saying, no, we don't need all the houses unlocked, just this one specific, individual house.



Apple responds, it doesn't work like that. If we make the new lock it has to be installed on every house.



Gov't: that's ok, we won't use it on any other house. And people could be dying and their blood will be on your hands if you don't help us.



Apple: Pound sand.

Sorry, I am over the whole terror scare. I'm not buying it. There were mass shootings before ISIS, Al Qaeda, or whoever else you want to throw in there. The amount of people killed by terror attacks in the United States is infinitesimally small compared to the amount of people killed by...say...drunk drivers.



I am tired of the Government, who employs me, by the way, thinking security comes before the Constitution. No it doesn't. Period. That is the same thing China says...security comes before liberty. I'm sorry. I'd rather have my liberty and take my chances with my own six shooter in the event of another mass shooting.



Wow, I just went all tombstone. :crazy: :blush:

Cougarfan87 wrote:
Sorry, I am over the whole terror scare. I'm not buying it. There were mass shootings before ISIS, Al Qaeda, or whoever else you want to throw in there. The amount of people killed by terror attacks in the United States is infinitesimally small compared to the amount of people killed by...say...drunk drivers.



I am tired of the Government, who employs me, by the way, thinking security comes before the Constitution. No it doesn't. Period. That is the same thing China says...security comes before liberty. I'm sorry. I'd rather have my liberty and take my chances with my own six shooter in the event of another mass shooting.



Wow, I just went all tombstone. :crazy: :blush:

Well said.

There clearly is no privacy issues here for the terrorist--he is dead. The only other interest Apple has to assert is its own perceived reputational interest as it perceives in assisting in legitimate law enforcement efforts. My understanding is the company has unlocked well over 50 Iphones since 2008, but does not want to do this anymore because it tarnishes the Apple brand--that its phones are safe from hack/and that Apple cooperates. All the FBI asked for here was Apple to adjust its software so that the phone does not automatically wipe itself clean after 10 unsuccessful PW attempts. I may be in the minority, but for me balancing Apple's reputational interest vs the worst domestic terrorist act in 15 years, I think Apple ought to assist in the investigation.