Apple Govt. mandate

[Mike Null]

I hope this doesn't become political though some are already making it so. But for my money I think Apple should resist all gov't. efforts to make them comply in developing a "backdoor" to the iPhone encryption system. My feeling is that this would lead to the most massive invasion of privacy ever and for everybody around the world. Governments around the world are more intrusive than ever and this just magnifies their capability by monumental amounts.

Politicians are already clamoring to make Apple the bad guy when what they should be asking is what in the world are we spending 100's of billions in national security for if those agencies can't handle something like this.

Other mods--feel free to kill this if you think it is out of line.

[Chris Hachet]

I think that we need to have an existential moment to ask ourselves why we are doing what we are doing as a country. Until we can hit the reset button, all efforts at reform are wasted efforts. About like a piece of furniture that would start out of square and get progressivly worse as the project went along.

What our country was founded on was fantastic....what we have now....not so much.

[Gordon Eyre]

Doesn't seem so onerous to me:
1. Create backdoor
2. Obtain info from phone
3. Share info with the FBI
4. Destroy backdoor
5. Charge government accordingly.

[John McClanahan]

If they do it once, they will be asked (or demanded) to do it again and again and again.....

Not taking sides, just sayin.


John

[Mike Henderson]

The only secure encryption technique is one that cannot - by any means - be decrypted by anyone except the person with the key. The only known encryption technique that fills that bill is a one time pad (if used properly).

If Apple can provide certain assistance, such as turning off the 10 try limit, then someone else can do the same. The NSA, for example, could figure out how to turn off the 10 try limit on their own. The NSA is not going to help the FBI because it would disclose that they have the means to access encrypted data on iPhones. (Once you turn off the 10 try limit, and the delay between tries, accessing the phone is trivial.)

I do not see this as a "backdoor". It's a one iPhone hack, not a way to access all iPhones. And no matter whether Apple cooperates or not, if there's a way to get into an encrypted iPhone, someone - either a private hacker or a foreign government - will discover it. Better for Apple to help the FBI and then if they want to really close the door, change things such that they CANNOT access the data, no matter what (if that's possible).

Mike

[roger wiegand]

How will we feel when Putin or Assad or the leaders of any other country makes a similarly legal and "legitimate" demand that Apple unlock a phone--perhaps the phone of a CIA officer they've captured and accused of something bad?

[Howard Garner]

Agreed, this will not be a one time thing.

Howard

[Jim Koepke]

Doesn't seem so onerous to me:
1. Create backdoor

This in effect demands Apple to surrender something it doesn't have at this point in time.

How much manpower can a judge demand an entity to expend on a process that may or may not be possible?

It is doubtful this 'software' could be confined to the use of a single iPhone. If it comes into existence for one, it is in existence for all.

jtk

[Mike Cutler]

John Macafee said he would hack the phone for free.
Apple should not have to develop software to bypass their encryption, and then turn it over to the Feds.
Open up one phone? Yes. Give them the software to do it at will? No.

[Jerome Stanek]

What makes you think there is no backdoor now for the I phone. Just because Apple says there is non. What about all those companies that wrote software where the programers installed one without the company knowing

[Jim Koepke]

I have seen many an editorial cartoon on this. Here is one from someone with whom I seldom agree:

http://www.gocomics.com/lisabenson/2016/02/19

There have been many others on this issue, some have changed it from iPhone to EYE-Phone.

jtk

[Myk Rian]

If they do it once, they will be asked (or demanded) to do it again and again and again.....

With a court order, only.
I can understand the FBIs side of this.

[Jerome Stanek]

why can't Apple update the firmware with a patch to remove the number of tries to unlock and not unlock it. Then let the FBI try to unlock it.

[Myk Rian]

why can't Apple update the firmware with a patch to remove the number of tries to unlock and not unlock it. Then let the FBI try to unlock it.

That's what the FBI wants. For ONE phone.

[Ken Fitzgerald]

Correct me Jerome if I'm wrong. Typically don't you have to turn the phone on and get past the password to authorize downloads or updates?