Your own personal data is yours and no one else’s (though many user agreements are obliged to tell you what they snoop on), and not Apple’s because they sold you a phone.
That’s kind of the point. Because they designed the security on their phones, they know how it works and would be better placed than anyone to know how to crack it, which is why the FBI asked them to. But they said no. I dare say they could have done if they wanted to. But they don’t want their security or their policy on privacy to look weak.
It looks extremely weak now anyway since that particular phone was breached in under a Century (the minimum time security ought to hold up for these days).
Other things to consider:
the US need Apple more than Apple needs the US, in any war between the two the US has no chance whatsoever.
The US is only one of about 200 different countries so anything the US does to weaken security could be considered a threat to all those other countries, as well as the dozens of huge international companies that are the real international powers today.
Also the FBI claimed they just wanted access to this one phone and this wouldn’t be a slippery slope. However now they are offering their phone-breaking “technical service” to local police departments who need criminals phones broken into.
personally i don’t see a problem with it. If the FBI or other high level security service (i live in the UK so it won’t be the FBI) need to access data related to a crime then they should be able to get a warrant and obtain that information.
It’s a bit like saying the criminal has built a super secure house and although the evidence might be in the house the police aren’t allowed in even though they have a warrant. And if they dare try we’ll burn the house down and there is nothing you can do.
The flip side of the argument is do we want to give people the ability to store/transfer/communicate information with complete and utter anonymity and security. Which is more dangerous?
edit - thinking about it it is similar to a psychiatrist having a patient who says he is going to kill someone. If the psychiatrist was Apple they would be saying we don’t care are we value patient-client confidentiality above everything else. In reality the psychiatrist is required to report that person if they truly believe a crime is going to be committed.
The whole point of decent security measures is that no one but the owner has access - anything less can be exploited by criminals. The security is to keep the criminals out - that it also keeps the police out when the owner is deceased is an unfortunate but necessary side effect.
Now that the criminals know that an iphone can be broken into in a relatively short time they now have the incentive to do so for every phone they can steal.
It would have been easy enough for Apple to say ok you have a warrant we will give you the information you are asking for on a case by case basis without having to reveal their encryption. Instead they had the US government put it’s weight into breaking their security, which was always going to happen. So now i am assuming Apple is going to be panicking and having to change their security now anyway.
This comes back to my previous question though as to whether it is acceptable to allow crimes to be committed and protected by Apple (or whoever else).
Let me pose a (very possible) situation then…if a known crime ring was trafficking children and a phone was recovered known to contain information that would break the ring and lead to numerous arrests and the protection of some children. Is it more important that Apple (or whoever) maintains a firm stance on data protection/encryption or should they hand over the information/work with security agencies?
It’s a fine balance between protecting your right to privacy vs protecting people against crime. I don’t have the answer but something to muse on perhaps.
What the government was asking Apple for was for them to build a method by which to bypass said security measures. They weren’t asking them to simply hand over some data they had stored. The very process of fulfilling the request would’ve let the “genie out of the bottle” so to speak, although apparently, the government managed that without Apple anyway. Once a method to break (any security) exists, it’s only a matter of time until criminals have it. You can’t trust the internal integrity of (any company, agency, or government) to hold onto secrets, especially digital ones.
Surely it would be better for Apple to have built something internally to recover the data and hand just the data over vs daring the US government to find a way to break it. Which they did and now Apple will have to change things before it gets into the public domain. They could have done this quietly but instead took a strong public stance which now sees them flat on their backs.
I would assume their are certain people within Apple that know how to break the encryption and have known for a long time. I don’t know this for a fact i am just assuming.
Do criminals have the same processing/man power as a government org?
i don’t actually know tbh. hence the question. I assume it wasn’t a 5 min job in someones backroom but i don’t know as that isn’t an area of work i am familiar with.
Also, why do you feel that serving a warrant would be necessary to gain said information if Apple actually did build in a backdoor for the FBI/government to get to the data?
If Apple caved and built the back door, the need for a warrant wouldn’t be necessary, there is a back door. Apple didn’t stop helping the FBI try to get to the data, but they did say they wouldn’t build a back door. They sent data over to the FBI, but it wasn’t the latest because the phone hadn’t sync’d with iCloud for weeks. Then the FBI reset the password to the iCloud account which prevented any future syncs from happening automatically (they shot themselves in the foot).
I think you really need to look at all of the details of this case, as most of them point to stupid shit the FBI did to make it harder for them to retrieve said data they want, not Apple being an asshat.
Nor did they want to admit it was possible to find a way to get around their security easily. Which unfortunately, has been proven (and I’d bet the details will be public before long). Which is why Apple is demanding to know how they cracked the phone - guaranteed there will be a lawsuit the other way now as Apple will sue the FBI to get details on how their proprietary (read: private) software was cracked…
We don’t know that for certain. For all we know they dissembled the iphone, took out the flash/sim card and started banging at it with brute force (which is personally what I would do). If the guy used a 4 digit pin, the brute for is dead simple (even 6 digits are easy).
Chances are the password was written somewhere or was a piece of identifiable information. Birthday/Year, Anniversary, Start Date, so many choices.
Because whilst i believe the information should be available in certain cases it shouldn’t just be an open door policy, The same way if the police want to search your house they need a reason and a warrant, they can’t just turn up and have a look in your sock draw.
the details will be public before long). Which is why Apple is demanding to know how they cracked the phone - guaranteed there will be a lawsuit the other way now as Apple will sue the FBI to get details on how their proprietary (read: private) software was cracked…