• Why Jihad Watch?
  • About Robert Spencer and Staff Writers
  • FAQ
  • Books
  • Muhammad
  • Islam 101
  • Privacy

Jihad Watch

Exposing the role that Islamic jihad theology and ideology play in the modern global conflicts

Apple won’t unlock San Bernardino jihad killer’s iPhone, but unlocked phones for the Feds 70 times before

Feb 18, 2016 8:01 am By Robert Spencer

Is Apple really trying to safeguard freedom and individual rights, or just pandering to its Leftist anti-American, pro-jihad base?

tim-cook

“Apple Unlocked iPhones for the Feds 70 Times Before,” by Shane Harris, The Daily Beast, February 17, 2016:

A 2015 court case shows that the tech giant has been willing to play ball with the government before—and is only stopping now because it might ‘tarnish the Apple brand.’

Apple CEO Tim Cook declared on Wednesday that his company wouldn’t comply with a government search warrant to unlock an iPhone used by one of the San Bernardino killers, a significant escalation in a long-running debate between technology companies and the government over access to people’s electronically-stored private information.

But in a similar case in New York last year, Apple acknowledged that it could extract such data if it wanted to. And according to prosecutors in that case, Apple has unlocked phones for authorities at least 70 times since 2008. (Apple doesn’t dispute this figure.)

In other words, Apple’s stance in the San Bernardino case may not be quite the principled defense that Cook claims it is. In fact, it may have as much to do with public relations as it does with warding off what Cook called “an unprecedented step which threatens the security of our customers.”

For its part, the government’s public position isn’t clear cut, either. U.S. officials insist that they cannot get past a security feature on the shooter’s iPhone that locks out anyone who doesn’t know its unique password—which even Apple doesn’t have. But in that New York case, a government attorney acknowledged that one U.S. law enforcement agency has already developed the technology to crack at least some iPhones, without the assistance from Apple that officials are demanding now.

The facts in the New York case, which involve a self-confessed methamphetamine dealer and not a notorious terrorist, tend to undermine some of the core claims being made by both Apple and the government in a dispute with profound implications for privacy and criminal investigations beyond the San Bernardino.

In New York, as in California, Apple is refusing to bypass the passcode feature now found on many iPhones.

But in a legal brief, Apple acknowledged that the phone in the meth case was running version 7 of the iPhone operating system, which means the company can access it. “For these devices, Apple has the technical ability to extract certain categories of unencrypted data from a passcode locked iOS device,” the company said in a court brief.

Whether the extraction would be successful depended on whether the phone was “in good working order,” Apple said, noting that the company hadn’t inspected the phone yet. But as a general matter, yes, Apple could crack the iPhone for the government. And, two technical experts told The Daily Beast, the company could do so with the phone used by deceased San Bernardino shooter, Syed Rizwan Farook, a model 5C. It was running version 9 of the operating system.

Still, Apple argued in the New York case, it shouldn’t have to, because “forcing Apple to extract data…absent clear legal authority to do so, could threaten the trust between Apple and its customers and substantially tarnish the Apple brand,” the company said, putting forth an argument that didn’t explain why it was willing to comply with court orders in other cases.

“This reputational harm could have a longer term economic impact beyond the mere cost of performing the single extraction at issue,” Apple said.

Apple’s argument in New York struck one former NSA lawyer as a telling admission: that its business reputation is now an essential factor in deciding whether to hand over customer information.

“I think Apple did itself a huge disservice,” Susan Hennessey, who was an attorney in the Office of the General Counsel at the NSA, told The Daily Beast. The company acknowledged that it had the technical capacity to unlock the phone, but “objected anyway on reputational grounds,” Hennessey said. Its arguments were at odds with each other, especially in light of Apple’s previous compliance with so many court orders.

It wasn’t until after the revelations of former-NSA contractor Edward Snowden did Apple begin to position itself so forcefully as a guardian of privacy protection in the face of a vast government surveillance apparatus. Perhaps Apple was taken aback by the scale of NSA spying that Snowden revealed. Or perhaps it was embarassed by its own role in it. The company, since 2012, had been providing its customers’ information to the FBI and the NSA via the so-called PRISM program, which operated pursuant to court orders.

Apple has also argued, then and now, that the government is overstepping the authority of the All Writs Act, an 18th Century statute that it claims forces Apple to conduct court-ordered iPhone searches. That’s where the “clear legal authority” question comes into play.

But that, too, is a subjective question which will have to be decided by higher courts. For now, Apple is resisting the government on multiple grounds, and putting its reputation as a bastion of consumer protection front and center in the fight….

Share this:

  • Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on WhatsApp (Opens in new window)
  • Click to print (Opens in new window)
  • Click to email this to a friend (Opens in new window)
  • More
  • Click to share on Skype (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Telegram (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Tumblr (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Pocket (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Pinterest (Opens in new window)

Follow me on Facebook

Filed Under: FBI, Featured, Jihad in the U.S. Tagged With: Apple, Syed Rizwan Farook, Tim Cook


Learn more about RevenueStripe...

Comments

  1. ICH says

    Feb 18, 2016 at 8:09 am

    Theres always another story !!!

    I heard the non truthful version on NPR today.
    Im ashamed I didnt think there was another untold truth.

    • Scrapple Daddy says

      Feb 18, 2016 at 8:18 am

      What’s the non truthful version?

      • gravenimage says

        Feb 18, 2016 at 10:16 am

        The non truthful version is that Apple has never faced being asked to unlock an iphone by law enforcement before, and is unable to comply because it would put all their customers at risk for loss of privacy.

  2. Muhammad Bear says

    Feb 18, 2016 at 8:22 am

    I suspect the previous 70 times were on the old platform. I understand that this is a new encryption.

    This is not as straightforward as some in the media claim. Apple’s concern is that if they break the phone they will be providing a master key that can be used to access everyone’s data. I think most people that love freedom would agree that this is undesirable.

    To me the obvious solution would be for Apple to hack the phone and provide the data to the FBI without giving the government the right to access people’s phones.

    • Michael says

      Feb 18, 2016 at 11:47 am

      Thank you, yes this is a key distinction. Previously on the other phones Apple provided a service to law enforcement to brute-force the phones. This worked because you could enter an unlimited number of unlock attempts. On this latest phone, Apple has a security feature where the phone will erase all data if an incorrect unlock code is given 10 times. Apple would need to build a version of iOS that defeats this security in order to unlock the new San Bernardino phone. This would be a huge step backward, and more importantly would set a precedent that would render encryption useless to all citizens.

  3. Peter says

    Feb 18, 2016 at 8:37 am

    Hello

    While I appreciate your insight into the ideology of Islam, when it comes to cryptology it would be better to consult with a cryptologist to assess if Apple’s response is valid or not.

    As a mathematician, familiar with cryptology, I can say that Tim’s original argument is valid, if the underlying request is true (that the FBI wanted a software which would enable them to break any phone they chose to break). You cannot create a software that is easy to break for one set of people, and at the same time expect it won’t be as easy for others to break as well. You can only build secure solutions, if they are built securely. This should be trivial. If data stored in the device’s memory could be broken by police, it means the complexity of the algorithm would have to be decreased somehow.

    There’s a golden rule to cryptology: Never build an algorithm that assumes hostile entities are unaware of the algorithm. For this reason, algorithms used in cryptosystems are open. This is important, since most code can be reverse engineered anyway, and algorithms deduced. Keys however, cannot be reverse engineered easily, especially if they are stored outside of the device’s memory (such as in the head of the user). To be able to break such a system, you would have to employ an algorithm that either stores the key on the device (making it readable by others) or making it weaker (making it possible to guess).

    What worries me in this affair, is not Apple’s unwillingness to comply with an order made by somebody lacking understanding of modern cryptology, but why it’s ONLY Apple that has protested. Other device manufacturers must have received similar requests…

    And, as an end note: If Apple would make it’s devices easy to break, criminals and terrorists would just use Another way to encrypt their data. As you yourself have reported, ISIS has its own IT hotline… It’s Always normal people, that do not know technology, that pays the price. In this case, it would become much easier for criminals to get access to peoples private information.

    Best regards,
    Peter

    Apple’s original letter:

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

    • jihad3tracker says

      Feb 18, 2016 at 10:27 am

      Hello Peter — I am replying to you because you seem quite knowledgeable, but any JW reader is welcome by me to respond to what I write. And, to minimize the communication ambiguity problems with slow back-and-forth TYPED DIALOGUE, NOT LIVE CONVERSATION, I am putting my points and questions in numbered form.

      Also, I have not taken any computer code writing courses, or read tech articles on that subject, but do consider myself to have a basic grasp of what might be involved in this situation. PLEASE POINT OUT MY ERRORS, WHEN THEY POP UP.

      1. As I understand the essential barrier, the jihadist phone which the FBI wants to access has Apple’s 4 digit entry code, and if the entry tries are wrong 10 times in a row, the phone shuts down permanently. Correct?

      2. Four digits permit 10,000 entry combinations, so if the source code for this feature can be changed to allow 10,001 tries without shutting down, and the FBI uses a simple program to generate those combinations (from 0000 to 9999) then IT WILL GAIN ACCESS TO THE PHONE’S CONTENTS. Correct?

      3. If the FBI gives that phone to Apple, then the FBI relocates temporarily several miles away, and the Apple tech goes into robust actual physical Faraday cage RF isolation, taking the phone OFF-CHARGER and ON BATTERY POWER, the Apple tech COULD USE THE COMPANY’S IPHONE SOURCE CODE to set the entry protocol to the 10,001 attempt permission. Correct?

      ******* Question 3 above is the essential query: Apple obviously has every one-and-zero of the source code — down to machine language — so WHY WOULDN’T THEY BE ABLE TO PUT ENTRY PERMISSIONS AT 10,001 ?????

      4. Then, they put the phone’s contents on an encryptable 128 GIG Sandisk thumb drive, call the FBI to come back to the building Apple is in, hands the thumb drive and encryption key to the FBI, and the task is successfully done. Correct?

      ——————————————————————————————-

      As Robert Spencer wrote in his intro to this blog item, I suspected right away (by reading Tim Cook’s letter) THAT COOK WAS DELIBERATELY OVER-BROADENING THE FBI REQUEST DUE TO HIS COMFORT-GUILT LEFTIST-SKEWED WEST-COAST ANTI- ISRAEL & JEW-HOSTILE ATTITUDE which he holds personally along with a predominance of Apple users. If he truly wants, he CAN do just what I have numerated above, with an exacting narrowness of task not compromising ANY CUSTOMER’S PRIVACY.

      • jihad3tracker says

        Feb 18, 2016 at 11:02 am

        I LEFT OUT A CRUCIAL STEP — After putting the phone contents on a thumb drive, THE APPLE TECH RESETS ENTRY TRIES TO THE ORIGINAL 10 PERMITTED, BEFORE GIVING IT BACK TO THE FBI.

      • Peter says

        Feb 18, 2016 at 1:14 pm

        Hello

        Thanks for your response. I’ll try to address your comments here below:

        > 1. As I understand the essential barrier, the jihadist phone which the FBI wants to access has Apple’s 4 digit entry code, and if the entry tries are wrong 10 times in a row, the phone shuts down permanently. Correct?

        Not sure. Phones can normally have a screen lock, that is either a PIN number or a password. Passwords provide more protection. However, they are only screen locks. A forensic technician has other means to access the contents of the phone, for instance extracting parts of one phone and inserting it into Another, read the contents of memory circuits, etc.

        I would assume the problem here, is that contents is written into the memory of the phone, data that is encrypted and cannot be bypassed that easy.

        > 2. Four digits permit 10,000 entry combinations, so if the source code for this feature can be changed to allow 10,001 tries without shutting down, and the FBI uses a simple program to generate those combinations (from 0000 to 9999) then IT WILL GAIN ACCESS TO THE PHONE’S CONTENTS. Correct?

        Assuming the data is ONLY protected by the weak protection provided by the screen lock (which I doubt), and that such a change in count is possible, which is not sure since it can be protected by means other than a simple counter, that would be correct. However, hypothetically, such a software would be fatal to Apple if they were to make it, since it would be bound to leak. Note that ALL software leaks, it’s just a matter of days. When I worked with computer games software, one of our games took 2 days to leak, and it was considered one of the hardest games to crack… And that was with a simple game where there’s no monetary reward for cracking the game. The police force contains people with ties to organized crime, organizations that would pay handsomely for software that would enable them to crack any phone. So, by releasing such a software, even to trusted parties, would almost guarantee that the security feature would leak.

        > 3. If the FBI gives that phone to Apple, then the FBI relocates temporarily several miles away, and the Apple tech goes into robust actual physical Faraday cage RF isolation, taking the phone OFF-CHARGER and ON BATTERY POWER, the Apple tech COULD USE THE COMPANY’S IPHONE SOURCE CODE to set the entry protocol to the 10,001 attempt permission. Correct?

        I assume this would be false. As I understood Tim’s message, they have helped with similar things before, something that seems to not be possible in that case. I would assume this is because the data is encrypted using a stronger means of encryption. It is this encryption the FBI has asked Apple to build a back-door into. This is a very strange request, since it assumes building such a back door is possible, which it is not, if the encryption is done correctly, which I would assume it is done. The only means to create a back-door would be to decrease the strength of the encryption, which would be suicidal for Apple’s image.

        Remember that Apple’s logo is the apple with which Turing took his Life. Turing was one of the most brilliant mathematicians ever, a cryptologist, and inspired the creation of computers for cracking the Enigma code. If Apple would create bad encryption algorithms, imaging what that would do to its image.

        > 4. Then, they put the phone’s contents on an encryptable 128 GIG Sandisk thumb drive, call the FBI to come back to the building Apple is in, hands the thumb drive and encryption key to the FBI, and the task is successfully done. Correct?

        I would assume they have already done this. But the contents of the memory which they would put on such a drive would itself be encrypted.

        > I LEFT OUT A CRUCIAL STEP — After putting the phone contents on a thumb drive, THE APPLE TECH RESETS ENTRY TRIES TO THE ORIGINAL 10 PERMITTED, BEFORE GIVING IT BACK TO THE FBI.

        And there you see what “human error” does to any supposedly secure system. People mean well, but do errors all the time. Therefore, if you want to build something securely, you need to do it securely (i.e. without back-doors).

        I hope that answers your questions.

        Best regards,
        Peter

      • Peter says

        Feb 18, 2016 at 1:19 pm

        PS: I would like to point out that I do not know the internals of the iPhone operating system (IOS) to the extent that I know how they have solved their security issues. I only know that if I would have been assigned the task to implement such features, I would have done it accordingly to what I’ve indicated above. And if I can do that, assuredly, the professionals at Apple can do at least that. More probable, they would do it even better.

      • Robert Crawford says

        Feb 18, 2016 at 3:54 pm

        If Apple could do that, so could the government, without need of Apple’s help.

  4. Lee Hicks says

    Feb 18, 2016 at 8:38 am

    So yes, Apple could unlock the phone, and they simply refuse, even though they have done it many times recently. The lie from Apple that is being believed is that they don’t have the ability to do so, and if they did, they would have to give the software to the government, to be freely used.

    Nothing could be further from the truth. They evidently have the ability to unlock the phone, have done so with others since 2008 (something that Apple doesn’t refute), and simply refuse to do so to prevent harm to the brand.

    My personal choice stands, in that whenever possible, I will avoid buying Apple products myself. Their controlling attitude (inherited from Steve Jobs), combined with their choice to place business concerns over public safety (securing the privacy of Jihadi bombers) is without merit or excuse.

    Opinions may vary on this, of course, and that is mine.

    • Al Fabeech says

      Feb 18, 2016 at 10:07 am

      Here’s an ironic puzzle….. Are the people that are more afraid of the government and loss of privacy, the same people who are more afraid of the government and gun control? …………………Privacy or Guns? What’s more important?

      • Angemon says

        Feb 18, 2016 at 11:31 am

        Al Fabeech posted:

        “Are the people that are more afraid of the government and loss of privacy, the same people who are more afraid of the government and gun control?”

        Your wording is confusing. Are you asking if the people who don’t want the government to take away their guns are the same people who are arguing against the government forcing Apple to crack the iOS? If so, and while I can’t read the minds of the millions of individuals arguing on those two subjects, I’m willing to bet there’s a huge overlap between people who don’t want government to invade their privacy and take away their right to bear arms and the people who don’t want the government to invade their privacy and be able to access their phones.

        It’s not an “either/or” dilemma, it’s two heads of the same hydra.

        • Al Fabeech says

          Feb 18, 2016 at 9:16 pm

          You get what I’m trying to say. I get what you are saying. I struggled trying to keep it simple and make my point….For example: Do you lean Left or Right?….. Right to Choose vs. Right to Life?… Right to Privacy vs. Right to Guns?…..Freedom of speech vs. Hate speech?….and of course what this whole site is about…..Progressives ignoring the ideology of Islam because it’s racist. I just wonder if the same thing applies here…..For the first time in my life last summer, I bought a gun for protection. We were broken into twice in a week in broad daylight, downtown little town, while one of us was was present. It’s apparent that there was a lookout with a cell phone watching our movements and communicating with someone inside as we were moving about between our 2 buildings. Police are 15 min. away…… Last week, not 35 miles north of us, the machete attack happened in Columbus. OH. I don’t think it made any of the 3 main online news sources. I guess maybe I’m saying until it happens to you, you don’t care. In the case of Snowden, the government lied and went behind our backs. I was for privacy. I had no fear of Muslims back then. This site and an old movie Robert Spencer opened my eyes. Now the government is asking us up front, out in the open, not bulk collection, a specific phone with probable cause…………. The criminals got the guns AND the privacy?……………

    • Marisol Enrique says

      Feb 18, 2016 at 4:38 pm

      Lee, you are absolutely RIGHT!! “Apple placing business concerns over public safety (securing the privacy of Jihadi bombers) is without merit or excuse.” BRAVO, Lee!! Hope you don’t mind, but I quoted you in my blog: https://plus.google.com/u/0/101123895573934886634/posts

  5. Ian H says

    Feb 18, 2016 at 8:57 am

    I laughed when I read the bit about the trust between the company and its customers. This is a company that bricks your phone if you repair it yourself instead of using an authorized dealer. Not much trust there. Google error 53 to see what I’m talking about.

  6. pdxnag says

    Feb 18, 2016 at 9:04 am

    So long as the current administration insists that the violent versus in the koran represent peace I cannot see the point of aiding them at doing anything. They love the evil Muslim Brotherhood, and their quest to wage conquest here and abroad. The head stinks.

    Let’s play pretend. Will the Trump administration be able to respond to the Islamic threat more effectively without unlocking iPhones than an Obama administration where all encryption everywhere for private people and entities is outlawed?

    Replacing Obama is far more important.

  7. gravenimage says

    Feb 18, 2016 at 10:12 am

    Apple won’t unlock San Bernardino jihad killer’s iPhone, but unlocked phones for the Feds 70 times before
    …………………….

    OK–now *this* puts a new twist on things. Why would Apple suddenly develop ‘ethical qualms’ when the phone in question belonged to a violent Jihad terrorist?

    • Jay Boo says

      Feb 18, 2016 at 12:24 pm

      I wonder if this had been a Timothy McVeigh attack on IRS, if Apple might have been as confrontational.

      • gravenimage says

        Feb 18, 2016 at 12:55 pm

        I wonder that as well, Jay Boo. My guess would be no.

        • Wellington says

          Feb 18, 2016 at 6:56 pm

          Me too, gravenimage. I smell multiculturalism here, which has a most offensive metaphorical odor

    • Robert Crawford says

      Feb 18, 2016 at 3:56 pm

      Those 70 times were with older versions of iOS. The newer ones were intentionally made so Apple couldn’t access them.

      • billybob says

        Feb 18, 2016 at 11:01 pm

        No, Apple Has Not Unlocked 70 iPhones For Law Enforcement
        http://techcrunch.com/2016/02/18/no-apple-has-not-unlocked-70-iphones-for-law-enforcement/

    • John says

      Feb 19, 2016 at 3:29 am

      Apple’s qualms here aren’t ethical. They are guttural, as in terror.

  8. William says

    Feb 18, 2016 at 10:53 am

    I support Apple in this situation, just as I would have supported them if they had refused to comply with the government in those other 70 cases. Unfortunately, Apple and the rest of tech companies are patsies, ready to comply at the slightest government coercion. This is not a matter of technological capability. It is a matter of an unimpeded government imposing their dominance over us. The government needs to be pushed back when they walk over our basic values. If the government, through some judge, ordered a gun manufacturer to provide their crime investigators with a technology either to locate or to disable a gun, remotely, that is believed hidden by a murderer after committing the crime, should the manufacturer comply with their order? Should the manufacturer comply with it, even if the government gives assurances it would only apply to that one particular case?

    • Karl says

      Feb 18, 2016 at 12:02 pm

      Hear Hear!! Most of Jihadwatch And PamelaGeller forum dittoheads are wetting their pants while spreading fear with “What If..” scenarios. This is the same thinking that got us the Iraq war. May calmer and more reasoned heads prevail.

      • Carolyne says

        Feb 18, 2016 at 1:00 pm

        I don’t think it is a “What if” scenario because the Obama administration has used the Justice Department and the IRS to punish those who disagree with its policies. It isn’t far-fetched at all to not only suspect, but know that the present government will violate the rights of citizens.

        To me, the “Ditto heads” are those who blindly trust the Federal Government to not trample on their rights since it has done so many times in recent years. They are mostly those who nod their heads at anything Hillary Clinton says or barks. More like “Bobble heads” in my estimation.

      • Wellington says

        Feb 18, 2016 at 7:20 pm

        You’re a fool, Karl, if you think that a President or the federal government should never act upon a “what if” scenario. And your cheap reference to most Jihad Watch regular commenters and those who support Pamela Geller as just some kind of dittoheads wetting their pants, etc., is beneath contempt.

        As for the Iraq War specifically, no President of the United States after 9/11 could have left a megalomaniac like Saddam Hussein, who was daily violating the truce terms of the 1991 War, for instance firing on British and American jets in the two no-fly zones, and who had left an al-Qaeda affiliate, Zarqawi, into Iraq in 2002, and respecting whom NO major intelligence agency on the planet thought he was coming clean on WMDs, in power. If you don’t know this, and it seems you don’t, you don’t know didly shit.

        So tired of Monday-morning quarterbacks like you. They’re a dime a dozen. You’re easily in such a dozen.

        • Karl says

          Feb 19, 2016 at 11:01 am

          Don’t like it when the shoe fits, eh, Wellington?

        • Wellington says

          Feb 20, 2016 at 12:24 pm

          Doesn’t fit, Karl, though you think it does off there in Karlworld as you are.

    • TH says

      Feb 19, 2016 at 1:50 am

      Can you defend yourself with your gun. Your arguments are absurd. Of course, nothing human is perfect and judges are not either, but they is supposed to be a separation of powers.

  9. E Ward says

    Feb 18, 2016 at 12:44 pm

    I’m not technical, so I understand only the basics here. Could it simply be that Tim Cook is afraid of Islamic terrorism against his company if he unlocks the phone? What if highly revealing information is found that puts a bullseye on Apple?

    • Robert Crawford says

      Feb 18, 2016 at 3:57 pm

      No, it’s because Apple put encryption into iOS that they cannot break. At least not within the lifetime of anyone alive today.

  10. Myxlplik says

    Feb 18, 2016 at 1:58 pm

    I don’t understand how giving the government more power helps while there is a cognitive disconnect between Islam, Muslims, and Jihad permiating our leaders and society. Helping the government thwart attacks only slows the process of societal wisdom about Muslims, Islam and Jihad, so it’s really counter productive at this point.

    The day we pull our heads out of our bungers, and stop Muslim immigration I’d consider temporarily granting the government the tools it needs to fight Islam (read Muslims)

  11. Nimrod says

    Feb 18, 2016 at 2:08 pm

    This is an Apple PR stunt.

    Yes, I understand the fact that Apple may have, for perhaps the first time ever, produced a secure consumer grade system. If so that was always guaranteed to be a temporary situation, but in reality they have admitted that they didn’t. The fact that Apple is even suggesting that they can break the system themselves suggests that it isn’t secure and others can do it.

    These companies have a long history of inserting back doors in products which they have done without any public battle over it. They may do it at law enforcement request or for “tech support” reasons.

    As the article suggests this is PR intended to counter the bad Snoden PR, but that’s all it is.

    Anyone who is serious about encrypting information has to use their own software just like ISIS. No commercial off the shelf products can be trusted. Heck, even ISIS’ software probably can’t be trusted as they probably backdoored it for their own purposes.

    • Robert Crawford says

      Feb 18, 2016 at 3:59 pm

      Where has Apple suggested they could Crack thus encryption?

      • Nimrod says

        Feb 18, 2016 at 9:34 pm

        Where have they suggested that they couldn’t?

        By “refusing” they’re implying that they could do it. Otherwise they’d just say that they’ve built a secure system that even they can’t crack without a key they don’t have.

    • billybob says

      Feb 18, 2016 at 7:18 pm

      This whole thing is just theatre. The fact is that the CIA/NSA already has a backdoor into the iPhones, even the the ones with the latest “unbreakable encryption”, in cooperation with Apple at the highest level.

      The FBI are not in on the secret, and are being duped to participate in the play. The theatre is to convince the whole world that these phones cannot be cracked, so that persons and governments of interest will feel confident in these phony devices and the US will have a bonanza of intell.

    • Mark Swan says

      Feb 19, 2016 at 7:11 am

      billybob…You Sir are indeed a true Genius…but You better watch out those Intelligence people
      have a way of making people disappear…thank You I am done with this topic.

  12. ballotcode says

    Feb 18, 2016 at 2:22 pm

    Maybe Apple is afraid of losing its’ Mohamedan market share. 😉

    • billybob says

      Feb 18, 2016 at 7:20 pm

      They are afraid of losing the Chinese market. Just a wiff of a suggestion that these phones are not secure will get them kicked out of the vast Chinese market.

  13. John Beggins says

    Feb 18, 2016 at 4:18 pm

    Maybe, if the murdered innocents had been homosexual men, Tim Cook wouldn’t have such a problem helping the Fed nail the Muslim bastards who planned and executed this disgusting terror attack?

  14. gravenimage says

    Feb 18, 2016 at 4:36 pm

    John Beggins wrote:

    Maybe, if the murdered innocents had been homosexual men, Tim Cook wouldn’t have such a problem helping the Fed nail the Muslim bastards who planned and executed this disgusting terror attack?
    ……………………………

    John, at least one of the victims of the San Bernadino Jihad terror attack *was* homosexual:

    “Gay Man Killed in San Bernardino Mass Shooting Credited With Saving Four”

    http://www.advocate.com/crime/2015/12/07/gay-man-killed-san-bernardino-mass-shooting-credited-saving-four

    He was also a hero who saved other victims.

  15. Rocco Lore says

    Feb 18, 2016 at 4:54 pm

    Openly gay CEO Tim Cook attacked Indiana but still sells in countries where homosexuality is a death sentence.

  16. William says

    Feb 18, 2016 at 6:32 pm

    The same thinking that got us Homeland Security, TSA, electronic eavesdropping, airport pat-downs, etc is the same thinking supporting the FBI and its court order’s compulsion for Apple to do as they say. When will the line be drawn? Will it ever be? Is there no limit to the government?

    Any talk about Apple’s motives or whether or not the CEO is gay is irrelevant. Those are smoke screens or red herrings.

  17. billybob says

    Feb 18, 2016 at 7:07 pm

    This is a red herring. The FBI already have all the phone numbers that were dialed from that phone, the date and time of day, and even location and movements of the caller. They also probably have all the text messages from WhatsApp and Facebook and Twitter. What else is on that phone of value – a bunch of Jihadi videos? The government wants a backdoor into these phones, and they are using this situation as a back door to try to get it because so far legislation has failed.

    We simply cannot trust the government to respect our right to privacy, unfortunately. If we give them a backdoor into our phones, they are going to use it to suppress dissent. Imagine they have a long list of recordings of your normal, every day calls to your friends, colleagues, and loved ones. Though you are a respectable citizen, they can use those recordings in an audio editor to splice together disparate phrases to may you appear to be discussing sedition or anything else to frame you with or discredit you. Robert Spencer would be one of the first victims, since I am sure Obama is very annoyed with him for raining on his parade of peaceful Muslims.

    • Wellington says

      Feb 18, 2016 at 7:41 pm

      I think you have gotten things wrong here. The FBI is coming clean here. if you really think this is a red herring by the FBI, then implicitly you’re indicting the FBI. Are you really ready to do this? And please remember, the Constitution is not a suicide pact.

      I cherish freedom, anyone asserting I don’t is simply wrong, but the putridity which is Islam presents the West, including America, with dire threats to its continued existence. Seems many here at JW who oppose what the FBI has requested in this “Apple matter” are as suspicious of the FBI as much as they are (or even more so) of all the barbarian Islamic terrorist organizations out there. This I find pathetic.

      • billybob says

        Feb 18, 2016 at 9:20 pm

        The FBI are only doing their job. I am not suggesting some conspiracy on their part. I’m indicting the government – specifically, the Justice Department, who controls the FBI and probably encourages them in this matter. The FBI’s efforts are convenient for them.

        The terrorists will find any number of ways to communicate. There are several well known apps that will give you unbreakable communications.

        I simply do NOT trust the government to have sweeping powers to hack into phones. They will abuse their power at every turn, and have done so with impunity in the past.

  18. PB says

    Feb 19, 2016 at 12:45 am

    The feds are going to legislate for backdoors in all encryption products and devices, and are going to use this single incident to sway public opinion, all in the interest of “keeping people safe”.

    To think that the knowhow and resources do not already exist to break into this phone is ludicrous.

    Once encryption is outlawed, criminals will STILL have encryption.

    We are far safer in our affairs and our “papers” if strong encryption remains legal.

  19. TH says

    Feb 19, 2016 at 1:46 am

    They should not be “asked”, they should be ordered to do so by a court and if they refuse, then jail for the Apple Boss.

  20. John Johness says

    Feb 19, 2016 at 5:16 am

    I still don’t get it. What secrets on an Iphone could anyone possibly have if you are generally law abiding? Can anyone tell me their secrets so I know what I am missing? I am a bit worried that I don’t have any on my Android phone.
    Apple has you all by the balls and you play along. They have turned a profit on your call for ‘rights’. Brilliant marketing.
    Here is a tip ; do what my six year old daughter does: she got a little purse and put all her secrets in that. Then she hides it. FBI will never find it.

    • Peter says

      Feb 19, 2016 at 5:37 am

      Consider a near future, where sites, and comments on sites, such as this site, become illegal… And consider the FBI, and then extended agencies having access to software that can “break”, or “scan” your phone, say each time you travel by air. And they would find that you comment on what they label a “hate site”, thus helping spreading “hate speech”. Well, it its true or not doesn’t matter, as they define what is true and false, right and wrong. Would you still want them to have access to your private information, private messages, private thoughts?

      • Myxlplik says

        Feb 19, 2016 at 9:19 am

        Yeah, and as far as the Federal Government is concerned the “War on Terror” got down graded to a war in “Violent Extreemism”.

        It all just seems a bit alarmist and extreem for the Feds to ask a private company to give up its proprietary secrets. Intellectual property if you will. Perhaps if there were something more going on than random “Workplace Violence”, and I would consider the request valid.

  21. jack baker says

    Feb 19, 2016 at 8:55 am

    Nice spun manipulative article. Yes, Apple did refuse to unlock phone, because it will help biuld a case for them to help with the main refusal i address later, but thats not the main issue, the gov’t could find a hacker in his garage that could get into THAT phone. The gov will carck THAT phone and investigate the San Bernadino shooters further without the help of Apple. What you are telling readers is that because Apple doesnt want to help they are on the side of Jihadists, this as I pointed out is null cause they dont need Apple to get in. But tthe main point that the slippery writer is neglecting to mention is that Apple’s refusal is based on the govt wanting them to build a capability for ALL iphones to have a feature which makes them unlockable by law enforcement if necessary, that is Unamerican silly author, nothing to do with Jihadists.

  22. duh_swami says

    Feb 19, 2016 at 9:10 am

    ;’We are in control…We control the horizontal and the vertical’…We know everything about you…everything..’We are watching you…every move you make, every step you take, we are watching you;…
    I
    t would be bad enough if all this was forced on us, but it’s not, we voted for it…

  23. Lloyd Miller says

    Feb 19, 2016 at 10:12 am

    Yes! Please correct this article. The Government is using this high visibility case to attempt to force Apple to give the government a permanent key to unlock these phones. No way! Get it right!

  24. Mark A says

    Feb 19, 2016 at 12:38 pm

    I’m an Apple shareholder and I think the Apple brand stands a higher risk of being tarnished by Apple’s refusal to cooperate with law enforcement in a clear case of domestic jihadi terrorism than it would by cooperating with law enforcement investigating said case of domestic jihadi terrorism.

    Apple wouldn’t even have to give away its propriety encryption secret in this case. I’m sure Apple could easily come to an arrangement whereby Apple unlocked the encryption in a secure Apple facility using Apple engineers and then provided that unencrypted information to the FBI.

    Instead, I’m seeing Apple as a possible supporter of jihad and jihadis, a position I can’t support in any way. And I’m an Apple shareholder and user of Apple products, but I don’t think Tim Cook is doing the Apple brand any credit here.

    • Myxlplik says

      Feb 19, 2016 at 1:48 pm

      Police action won’t win this suicide pact we have with our immigration policy regarding Muslims, and the ideology of Islam at large.

      If the Federal Government really wanted to act it would arm the American people with the information we need to fight, stating with the “28 pages”.

      http://fullmeasure.news/28-pages-a-full-measure-special-report-about-the-911-attacks-09-26-2015-032643632

      Apple agreed to 70 instances of data encryption help for the Feds, that number is up, and now the Feds want the code.

      Feds, release the 28 pages, define the enemy or buzz off.

    • Darian says

      Feb 19, 2016 at 3:28 pm

      If under Court Order, Cook won’t decipher his product and supply the Feds with (printed-no software) primary evidence in a terrorist/mass-murder crime, then he needs to be frog-marched off his “banana republic” grounds and into a federal prison cell until he complies for obstructing evidence in the case.
      That’s what they’d do to us. That’s what we’d expect from any other local Company where Californians we’re slaughtered by islamozombie terrorists.
      Cook is no Steve Jobs and with falling IPhone sales and stocks and little “vision” left,
      he is slowly taking Apple into a death spiral.
      Boosting sales to every criminal and terrorist isn’t a viable business model.
      If Cook believes he will deprive law enforcement of primary forensic evidence (phone records) in the investigation of any crime using his sacred Iphone then he is delusional.
      Time to dump this hysterical little man, find some lost vision-maybe even bring back the “Woz”?

      • Myxlplik says

        Feb 19, 2016 at 3:41 pm

        So if they duck walk Cook, who do we get to duck walk for covering up the classified 28 pages of the 911 report?

        Seems the Feds want some pretty extreem powers for something they won’t even admit is an issue.

FacebookYoutubeTwitterLog in

Subscribe to the Jihad Watch Daily Digest

You will receive a daily mailing containing links to the stories posted at Jihad Watch in the last 24 hours.
Enter your email address to subscribe.

Please wait...

Thank you for signing up!
If you are forwarding to a friend, please remove the unsubscribe buttons first, as they my accidentally click it.

Subscribe to all Jihad Watch posts

You will receive immediate notification.
Enter your email address to subscribe.
Note: This may be up to 15 emails a day.

Donate to JihadWatch
FrontPage Mag

Search Site

Translate

The Team

Robert Spencer in FrontPageMag
Robert Spencer in PJ Media

Articles at Jihad Watch by
Robert Spencer
Hugh Fitzgerald
Christine Douglass-Williams
Andrew Harrod
Jamie Glazov
Daniel Greenfield

Contact Us

Terror Attacks Since 9/11

Archives

  • 2020
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2019
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2018
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2017
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2016
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2015
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2014
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2013
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2012
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2011
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2010
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2009
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2008
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2007
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2006
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2005
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2004
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2003
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • March

All Categories

You Might Like

Learn more about RevenueStripe...

Recent Comments

  • gravenimage on Iranian Kurdistan: Muslim brothers behead their sister in honor killing over her romantic relationship
  • gravenimage on New study reveals that Muslim religiosity strongly linked to hatred towards the West
  • Shaman on Iranian Kurdistan: Muslim brothers behead their sister in honor killing over her romantic relationship
  • gravenimage on New study reveals that Muslim religiosity strongly linked to hatred towards the West
  • gravenimage on Chief Rabbi of UK Says It’s ‘Alarming’ That 44% of Muslims Are Anti-Semitic

Popular Categories

dhimmitude Sharia Jihad in the U.S ISIS / Islamic State / ISIL Iran Free Speech

Robert Spencer FaceBook Page

Robert Spencer Twitter

Robert Spencer twitter

Robert Spencer YouTube Channel

Books by Robert Spencer

Jihad Watch® is a registered trademark of Robert Spencer in the United States and/or other countries - Site Developed and Managed by Free Speech Defense

Content copyright Jihad Watch, Jihad Watch claims no credit for any images posted on this site unless otherwise noted. Images on this blog are copyright to their respective owners. If there is an image appearing on this blog that belongs to you and you do not wish for it appear on this site, please E-mail with a link to said image and it will be promptly removed.

Our mailing address is: David Horowitz Freedom Center, P.O. Box 55089, Sherman Oaks, CA 91499-1964

loading Cancel
Post was not sent - check your email addresses!
Email check failed, please try again
Sorry, your blog cannot share posts by email.