FBI Director Admits under Oath that iPhone Case would Set a Precedent; Wants 175 iPhones Unlocked

[RedRound2]

 

Quote

FBI director James Comey – who had previously claimed that “the San Bernardino litigation isn’t about trying to set a precedent” – has now admitted that it would. The Guardian reports that Comey made the admission when testifying under oath yesterday to a Congress committee.

 

The ultimate outcome of the Apple-FBI showdown is likely to “guide how other courts handle similar requests”, James Comey told a congressional intelligence panel on Thursday, a softening of his flat insistence on Sunday that the FBI was not attempting to “set a precedent”.

 

Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance is one of those who has said his office is planning to bring similar cases to court, the Guardian reporting that he has 175 cases of locked iPhones awaiting the outcome of the FBI case.

Talk about irony. What Tim Cook predicted exactly happened. Main intention of the FBI was to set up a precedent and they're already in line with 175 other iPhones

 

Quote

CNET reports that all five remaining Republican Presidential candidates unsurprisingly come down on the side of the FBI, with Marco Rubio the most aggressive in his language.

 

“Apple doesn’t want to do it [hack the phone] because they think it hurts their brand,” Rubio insisted. “Well, let me tell you their brand is not superior to the United State of America.”

 

Bizarrely, this appeared to contradict a statement he made last week that Apple “wasn’t necessarily in the wrong.”

 Pretty sure this case is going all the way to Supreme court now especially since everyone both in tech and public are equally divided on where to stand

 

Source: http://9to5mac.com/2016/02/26/fbi-apple-iphone-precedent-poll-candidates/

[suxen]

Suddenly I totally back Apple.  I don't believe the FBI should have the right to willy nilly decide what company marginalises their own security, and of course, that of their customers.

[Atmos]

I don't have a problem with the fbi getting the information from phones in their possession confiscated from criminals. What I have a problem with is the development and release of a backdoor in a piece of hardware that the sheeple of the world use.

[suxen]

Just now, Atmos said:

I don't have a problem with the fbi getting the information from phones in their possession confiscated from criminals. What I have a problem with is the development and release of a backdoor in a piece of hardware that the sheeple of the world use.

This.  Absolutely.  Sums up my feeling precisely.  I've been on the fence until today.

[SirNumbers]

If apple wins I'll buy a iPhone 

[suxen]

I've been struggling to find out more about the LEGAL aspect of this.  What right have the FBI?  Can they legally demand this?  Could this go to court/supreme court?  I mean could we be looking at a constitutional issue here?  Do Apple reserve the right to decline?  Is this simply a moral issue for Apple?  Or a legal one?

[RedRound2]

1 minute ago, Atmos said:

I don't have a problem with the fbi getting the information from phones in their possession confiscated from criminals. What I have a problem with is the development and release of a backdoor in a piece of hardware that the sheeple of the world use.

They want a backdoor. They dont want to come to apple everytime they get an iPhone and they want something like a master key to retrieve all the data

This will initially start as 'not big of a problem'to something like what NSA does now but to far worse extent invading into everyone's personal space

[Deoros]

“Apple doesn’t want to do it [hack the phone] because they think it hurts their brand,” Has he ever heard of privacy and does he know that would mean making a hole for hackers to tackle. “Well, let me tell you their brand is not superior to the United State of America.” No shit Sherlock. But their logic is.

[suxen]

3 minutes ago, RedRound2 said:

 

 

7 minutes ago, Atmos said:

 

[RedRound2]

Just now, suxen said:

I've been struggling to find out more about the LEGAL aspect of this.  What right have the FBI?  Can they legally demand this?  Could this go to court/supreme court?  I mean could we be looking at a constitutional issue here?  Do Apple reserve the right to decline?  Is this simply a moral issue for Apple?  Or a legal one?

According to the constitution, privacy is basic right of all americans and that's what apple is using to argue with. The FBI on the other hand are bringing up terrorism and national security up and putting it all over to gain the sympathy of the public which was the initial reason why this went public in the first place

Since its democracy you can go against the government through judiciary, but the Supreme court is the last stop 

[79wjd]

8 minutes ago, suxen said:

I've been struggling to find out more about the LEGAL aspect of this.  What right have the FBI?  Can they legally demand this?  Could this go to court/supreme court?  I mean could we be looking at a constitutional issue here?  Do Apple reserve the right to decline?  Is this simply a moral issue for Apple?  Or a legal one?

Well, Apple refusing is in a waye obstruction of justice (which is very illegal). So yes, the FBI can legally demand the information, although it's also possible for Apple to refuse due to the fact that it would cause: an undue burden on apple, or some other reason/s. Yes, it can and likely will make it to the Supreme Court (at this rate).

 

@RedRound2 I don't see the "people deserve privacy" holding much water since the FBI will just claim that they're not asking to access any phones, just those involved in national security cases.

[suxen]

1 minute ago, djdwosk97 said:

Well, Apple refusing is in a waye obstruction of justice (which is very illegal). So yes, the FBI can legally demand the information, although it's also possible for Apple to refuse due to the fact that it would cause: an undue burden on apple, or some other reason/s. Yes, it can and likely will make it to the Supreme Court (at this rate).

Demanding the information is not the same as what they are requesting.  They are demanding a USERS information, said user is dead.  What responsibility does Apple HAVE is the question?  They are not demanding information from them, they are demanding a re-write of software.

[Deoros]

2 minutes ago, djdwosk97 said:

Well, Apple refusing is in a waye obstruction of justice (which is very illegal). So yes, the FBI can legally demand the information, although it's also possible for Apple to refuse due to the fact that it would cause: an undue burden on apple, or some other reason/s. Yes, it can and likely will make it to the Supreme Court (at this rate).

They can't demand it because of the right to privacy. Which applies to that phone.

[suxen]

Just now, Deoros said:

They can't demand it because of the right to privacy. Which applies to that phone.

Yes this was my thinking.  The phone is the user's, not Apples.  So the FBI have no right to force apple to share that users data.  Surely then, this is a request and no more?

[RedRound2]

1 minute ago, djdwosk97 said:

 

@RedRound2 I don't see the "people deserve privacy" holding much water since the FBI will just claim that they're not asking to access any phones, just those involved in national security cases.

That is what they'll claim. But if apple does end up making a master key, then eventually the FBI would like to remote access because you know 'suspicious activity' and end up spying everyone 

[Deoros]

Just now, suxen said:

Yes this was my thinking.  The phone is the user's, not Apples.  So the FBI have no right to force apple to share that users data.  Surely then, this is a request and no more?

Exactly, if they demand it even if it is against their own rights. That is an act of war and pure ignorance.

[comicsansms]

I actually want an iPhone now. NVME SSDs and now this. I really wished android handset makers would make their phones very secure and have super fast SSDs.

[79wjd]

7 minutes ago, suxen said:

Demanding the information is not the same as what they are requesting.  They are demanding a USERS information, said user is dead.  What responsibility does Apple HAVE is the question?  They are not demanding information from them, they are demanding a re-write of software.

6 minutes ago, Deoros said:

They can't demand it because of the right to privacy. Which applies to that phone.

You forfeit the right to privacy if you're a criminal (that's basically what a warrant is by definition -- a court ordered removal of privacy). The fact that the owner of the phone is dead doesn't matter. 

5 minutes ago, RedRound2 said:

That is what they'll claim. But if apple does end up making a master key, then eventually the FBI would like to remote access because you know 'suspicious activity' and end up spying everyone 

I don't think FBI should be given a master key, or that Apple should make a back door. 

[Nineshadow]

3 minutes ago, Deoros said:

They can't demand it because of the right to privacy. Which applies to that phone.

Patriot Act?

[Deoros]

2 minutes ago, djdwosk97 said:

You forfeit the right to privacy if you're a criminal (that's basically what a warrant is by definition -- a court ordered removal of privacy). The fact that the owner of the phone is dead doesn't matter. 

I don't think FBI should be given a master key, or that Apple should make a back door. 

Apple will not unlock or give access to a device for anyone even if they are legally DEAD. It is against their policy and terms of use.

[79wjd]

4 minutes ago, Deoros said:

Apple will not unlock or give access to a device for anyone even if they are legally DEAD. It is against their policy and terms of use.

Apple won't, but many companies will. And Apple will if the government has a valid warrant for it, the only reason why it's an issue now is because Apple would physically have to engineer a backdoor into the device (i.e. if it was possible for Apple to give the FBI the data right now, then there wouldn't be a case, Apple would be forced to comply).

 

Look up what a warrant is. 

[Deoros]

5 minutes ago, Nineshadow said:

Patriot Act?

I don't know much about it. I don't know enough to see how it would affect the case. Except to override their own right. Which I doubt considering you cant do that.

[RedRound2]

2 minutes ago, huilun02 said:

This company which essentally has slave workers, is somehow in a more justifiable position than the state. 

Well that actually more of foxconn's and china's fault, not Apple's

[Moonzy]

5 minutes ago, Comic_Sans_MS said:

I actually want an iPhone now. NVME SSDs and now this. I really wished android handset makers would make their phones very secure and have super fast SSDs.

totally unrelated to the topic but...

Spoiler

 

 

 

[79wjd]

5 minutes ago, RedRound2 said:

Well that actually more of foxconn's and china's fault, not Apple's

Apple could try and force Foxconn to change if they really wanted to, but it's also not Apple's responsibility to clean up other company's messes.