r2i forum

To me it seems like Apple should help access the data and I think they will have access to the phone in their own facility and hopefully will get paid for the work. Why are they fighting back?

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-35591988

It is not a one-off case. If they do it for this instance, there will be a slew of requests from law enforcement which would follow.

Say, there is a victim dead on the street. Next to the victim is an iPhone. There are no witnesses. The authorities would be interested in checking the phone for leads. Not a hypothetical case, but a real one.

Note that the presumption of innocence concept as well. Say the law enforcement arrests someone they suspect of a crime. They would like to establish the case with proof and they may like to peek into the phone of the arrested.

Too much complications with defining the boundaries of government requests.

Can't go by passion or emotion, as in this case of terrorism. They are dead and gone. Now it is more a question of finding "if" they had information on others. That is speculative investigation.

Their competitors are supporting AAPL in this fight back, which has far reaching consequences if data security is not protected. And there is this offer which might bring a closure to the controversy. If not, there is probably much more to it than what I have read so far.

[QUOTE]So here is my offer to the FBI. I will, free of charge, decrypt the information on the San Bernardino phone, with my team. We will primarily use social engineering, and it will take us three weeks. If you accept my offer, then you will not need to ask Apple to place a back door in its product, which will be the beginning of the end of America.

http://www.businessinsider.com/john-mcafee-ill-decrypt-san-bernardino-phone-for-free-2016-2

Per this link, Apple in the past has complied govt.'s request to unlock phones..
It's not clear how many of the estimated 70 iPhones ran the older, less secure operating systems ? iOS 7 and under ? and how many used the passcode-required ones, which started with iOS 8.
Apple has unlocked 70 iphones in the past

The opposition is bogus. Tim must be forced to open the i-phone.

The Law has sufficiently matured to the point where the Judge makes the call whether to obtain the information or not. Many (otherwise) outright evidences have been thrown out in many cases b'coz the Judge opined it had been attained illegally. Judges in almost every case, do not allow fishing expedition.

Apple is bringing is another layer in the Judicial system. Apple says it knows better than the Judge and the judicial system. That to me is unacceptable.

There is even more personal information in other places , say a locked house and Judges issue order to open them all the time.

Apple has allowed emotion to take hold and hijack the argument.

sophisticuss;623573There is even more personal information in other places , say a locked house and Judges issue order to open them all the time.

Apple has allowed emotion to take hold and hijack the argument.

That is a good example, but...

It is not a matter of just unlocking one house. What is perceived to be the issue is that the judge orders the lock maker to either create a less safe lock or a skeleton key that would potentially open all locks. Even if the judge says that the skeleton key be with the maker and they would just give the lock for the lock maker to open, it still is a key that could potentially open all locks. Problems in life start with such seemingly simple things, like the skeleton key.

I think we are mixing two issue here -
1. Backdoor entry - A master lock to unlock al encrypted communication.
2. Bypass the passcode attempts of San Bernadino terrorist phone - After more than 10 attempts of wrong password, the iPhone deletes all the data.

In this SPECIFIC case, FBI has a Judge's warrant to open only this terrorist's phone, and these warrants are always for cases with probably cause. .
This is the legally prescribed way even to open any lock or even safe held in a bank!

VS007;623581I think we are mixing two issue here -
1. Backdoor entry - A master lock to unlock al encrypted communication.
2. Bypass the passcode attempts of San Bernadino terrorist phone - After more than 10 attempts of wrong password, the iPhone deletes all the data.

In this SPECIFIC case, FBI has a Judge's warrant to open only this terrorist's phone, and these warrants are always for cases with probably cause. .
This is the legally prescribed way even to open any lock or even safe held in a bank!

But AAPL thinks it is being asked to do the item 1 you mentioned, supported by even its competitors. AAPL is very certain that it is a compromise on security, since it opens the door for bad guys who can easily find a way to copy that master key. And not to mention, the employees and admins will also have access to this back door entry, as with any such system that the technical community know of. That is what is being referred to as 'beginning of the end of America'. The link I posted earlier has more details.

I am waiting to learn what is really happening in the background that the internet is still not aware of.

VS007;623581I think we are mixing two issue here -
1. Backdoor entry - A master lock to unlock al encrypted communication.
2. Bypass the passcode attempts of San Bernadino terrorist phone - After more than 10 attempts of wrong password, the iPhone deletes all the data.

In this SPECIFIC case, FBI has a Judge's warrant to open only this terrorist's phone, and these warrants are always for cases with probably cause. .
This is the legally prescribed way even to open any lock or even safe held in a bank!

What issues that you know that Tim Cook doesn't?

http://www.apple.com/customer-letter/

There is mention of backdoor and master key being requested. I would probably go with Apple's explanation of the potential issue with what is being requested, as they know best.

Consumers know what "SPECIFIC case" means.

There is an effort to secure funding for the government to work on it themselves for the future. What the government has done is expose a potential vulnerability. Apple sure will be working on ensuring that possibility is eliminated in their hardware/firmware/OS. They just don't want to be able to break in themselves, so that they don't need to be forced into compliance.

boca;623587What issues that you know that Tim Cook doesn't?

Nothing! Tim Cook knows more, also he knows the bottomline of his company.

However read the motion in the first hyperlink of this link-
http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2016/02/apple-fbi-san-bernardino/470169/
The Order requires Apple to assist the FBI with respect to this single iPhone used by Farook by providing the FBI with the opportunity to determine the passcode. The Order does not, as Apple’s public statement alleges, require Apple to create or provide a “back door” to every iPhone; it does not provide “hackers and criminals” access to iPhones; it does not require Apple to “hack [its] own users” or to its own phones; it does not give the government “the power to reach into anyone’s device” without a warrant or court authorization; and it does not compromise the security of personal information. To the contrary, the Order allows Apple and it gives Apple flexibility in the manner in which it provides assistance. In fact, the software never has to come into the government?s custody.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]5358[/ATTACH]

In a nutshell, Apple is conflating the two issues to look good before its customers esp after Snowden!