“What the FBI wants to do would make us less secure, even though it’s in the name of keeping us safe from harm. Powerful governments, democratic and totalitarian alike, want access to user data for both law enforcement and social control. We cannot build a backdoor that only works for a particular type of government, or only in the presence of a particular court order.” In the age of Obama and Hillary Clinton, that is a very serious concern.
“Why you should side with Apple, not the FBI, in the San Bernardino iPhone case,” by Bruce Schneier, Washington Post, February 18, 2016:
…The FBI’s demands are specific to one phone, which might make its request seem reasonable if you don’t consider the technological implications: Authorities have the phone in their lawful possession, and they only need help seeing what’s on it in case it can tell them something about how the San Bernardino shooters operated. But the hacked software the court and the FBI wants Apple to provide would be general. It would work on any phone of the same model. It has to.
Make no mistake; this is what a backdoor looks like. This is an existing vulnerability in iPhone security that could be exploited by anyone.
There’s nothing preventing the FBI from writing that hacked software itself, aside from budget and manpower issues. There’s every reason to believe, in fact, that such hacked software has been written by intelligence organizations around the world. Have the Chinese, for instance, written a hacked Apple operating system that records conversations and automatically forwards them to police? They would need to have stolen Apple’s code-signing key so that the phone would recognize the hacked as valid, but governments have done that in the past with other keys and other companies. We simply have no idea who already has this capability.
And while this sort of attack might be limited to state actors today, remember that attacks always get easier. Technology broadly spreads capabilities, and what was hard yesterday becomes easy tomorrow. Today’s top-secret NSA programs become tomorrow’s PhD theses and the next day’s hacker tools. Soon this flaw will be exploitable by cybercriminals to steal your financial data. Everyone with an iPhone is at risk, regardless of what the FBI demands Apple do.
What the FBI wants to do would make us less secure, even though it’s in the name of keeping us safe from harm. Powerful governments, democratic and totalitarian alike, want access to user data for both law enforcement and social control. We cannot build a backdoor that only works for a particular type of government, or only in the presence of a particular court order.
Either everyone gets security or no one does. Either everyone gets access or no one does. The current case is about a single iPhone 5c, but the precedent it sets will apply to all smartphones, computers, cars and everything the Internet of Things promises. The danger is that the court’s demands will pave the way to the FBI forcing Apple and others to reduce the security levels of their smart phones and computers, as well as the security of cars, medical devices, homes, and everything else that will soon be computerized. The FBI may be targeting the iPhone of the San Bernardino shooter, but its actions imperil us all.

Stephen says
We are Fully Agreed with IPhone encryption rules. We must Not allow any kind of government laws to be deregulate the whole system.
No way ….
Thom says
It is actually quite easy! Yes, Apple should “open” the phone but only by them, not some software given to FBI or anyone else. Then the FBI can look through the opened phone as they should do but have no access or rights as to the opening ability/software. Maybe Apple could erase it once the job is done. We must fight muslim aggression at every turn.
Jack Gordon says
I think Thom is right. It’s hard to see why Apple’s revealing the content of the phone but not the decryption process endangers anyone anywhere. If done voluntarily, it sets no precedent at all. If Apple were a patriotic enterprise and not the amorphous globalist cash-cow it really is, all this would have never hit the newspapers. Those who think it is a “freedom” issue remind me of the Ron Paul types who think the Federal Reserve is some kind of Masonic plot hatched among the Skull and Bones club members at Yale. It’s all perfect nonsense.
Shane says
I agree; let Apple decript the phone and keep the software secret. I don’t want the government to get the software, but Apple should keep it.
Gordon Mock says
I agree. Give the phone to Apple and they hand back the information on it. Don’t give the FBI the means to unlock it, just the information on that phone or any other one. Keep the key in a vault like the formula to Coke is.
underbed cat says
Makes sense to me.
Jan Williams says
The concern that was brought up to me was the fact that this could be “case law”. Every time a warrant for this or any faux trumped up reason would be issued, it would have an established “case law” to fall back on. Refuting the request would be stymied in a court of law because of citing “case law”.
BC says
Exactly they can open the phone and give the information which is important to the FBI. The destroy the software. Nobody has to know how they did it and I am sure they do not need to make special software either
mgoldberg says
Apple bowed to China’s request to let them look into the code, so they could ascertain that there was no spyware in ipones. So, it’s okay for apple to give away the code to China but not the FBI??
I have no knowledge of computer science. I do think that Apple could open the phone download the info of the data and give the data to the fbi without telling them how they did this. That seems more than reasonable to me… to get the data from committed killers of 13 people who did them no harm and who were slaughtered in the name of Allah, mohammed and Jihad.
Rev g says
You are confusing two separate ideas. The China situation was Apple’s decision, they profited from the disclosure, being allowed to sell possibly millions of phones in a sheltered marketplace.
The FBI request has no upside for Apple. The FBI is free to try and hack the phone, Apple is not obstructing them. They just don’t want to be complicit in signing their own product’s death warrant in a competitive market.
Lia Wissing says
I think all this kerfuffle could have been avoided. FBI should just quietly have given the ‘phone to a youngster (male or female) at any Israeli cybersecurity firm.
Black Eagle says
It is really simple. Don’t put sensitive info on any phone, I- or not.
That’s a no-brainer. And you can bet there already are criminal elements and foreign governments who have the code-cracking software already in-hand. To assume otherwise is folly.
Rev g says
Seems true about this phone so far……
dlbrand says
Black Eagle said: “you can bet there already are criminal elements and foreign governments who have the code-cracking software already in-hand. To assume otherwise is folly.”
Indeed. In brief.
Rev g says
But not the FBI, apparently.
Sam Hawkins says
Bruce Schneier is right about setting limits on the government’s intrusive snooping into our lives, but he neglects to give any suggestions on alternative means of keeping citizens safe from terrorism. Stopping Muslims from immigrating to the U.S.? Heavens no! That would be discriminatory. So while the pony-tailed, grey-bearded Schneier can be useful as a critic, his kind should not be setting policy … but they are. Left-liberals and their clueless, naive enabling of the global jihad have made us less safe and are continuing to makes us less safe. They have blood on their hands.
Miao Zedong says
Initially I thought that Apple refused the crack the single Phone with whatever means possible. Refusal to do so would be aiding and abetting in my opinion. However, asking Apple to built in a backdoor in the system of all iphone users is ridiculous. If the government can’t crack the iPhone they should make iPhones the device of choice for their agencies, as it passed the security test. If a backdoor is factoried in, EACH cell phone will be unsecure. How about doing their job and tracking suspects and intervening long bevor the terrorist youporn-collection on icloud becomes vital ?
old white guy says
How do we find out just who else was involved in the jihad murder that these people committed? if we can’t look at anyone’s phone, then we can’t look at them at all in this current technological age. It should be possible to isolate a single phone without infringing on anyone else’s privacy. I do agree that all phones should never be available to any government agency.
rara says
FBI doesn’t like to be clear about that, but the shooter had the private phone and the company phone. He used the private phone for his Jihad and the attack, and took care to physically destroy it before he fought with the police.
The phone with which the FBI wants to make the legal precedent is the killer’s *company phone* which he used only for job, didn’t care to destroy it and which was locked to the current state by the actions of the investigators (they changed the password remotely)!
Angemon says
I’m siding with Apple as long as the case is as Apple presents it: the FBI wants Apple to build something that can be used to gain access to ALL of their phones (or all phones of that model, or all phones running that OS – in short, more than just that phone). If it turns out that Apple can do it without jeopardizing any other phone, I’m switching sides faster than Benedict Arnold, Munir Redfa and Gaius Cassius Longinus combined.
This was exactly my thoughts when I learned that Apple could do it:
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2016/02/apple-refuses-fbi-request-to-hack-san-bernardino-jihadis-iphone#comment-1380969
“…Meaning that there’s (theoretically) a way they can access the data that’s supposedly secure and out of their reach. And if there’s theoretically a way, who’s to say a group like ISIS, or hackers in China or Russia or Pakistan won’t try to figure it out? ”
This is my feeling exactly. I *want* law enforcement to gain access to the data on that phone, but as things stand, the consequences of doing so will be long lasting. It’s not a “one-time” thing, it’s a very dangerous precedent, and one I don’t want to see created.
jihad3tracker says
Apparently even the “experts” have differing assessments of what is involved technically in hacking the iPhone.
Here is a link for the ultra-techies among JW readers, and even the non-specialist schlubs — like me:
http://arstechnica.com/apple/2016/02/encryption-isnt-at-stake-the-fbi-knows-apple-already-has-the-desired-key/?comments=1&start=240
Ilion says
Yes, we should side with Apple in this instance.
At the same time, had the Muzzie terrorists been white and claimed to be Christian, and had they murdered the patrons of a “gay” bar, does anyone really believe that Apple would be refusing to do this?
Mark Swan says
Nope
Jerry in Minneapolis says
Just recently our CIA director and FBI was hacked by teenagers, just two cases in a long line of data breaches. Governments can’t even keep their own computers safe from hackers, now they want us to place our security in their hands. They must be nuts. Amazingly the law thinks it good that we increase computer crime with weakened security so they can catch terrorists, terrorists who are so well-funded and savvy that a universal backdoor on everything could not stop them. But our government is in a power grab right now, they must deprive us of our dignity and civil rights to protect us, that’s the argument.
The law can’t see the forest for the trees with this thing. Give us the ‘skeleton key’ for everything they say, we’ll keep you safe. LOL. Computer crime is already epidemic right now, and even a dumb person knows that back doors will only make that exponentially worse. Compromising the security and privacy of millions of citizens and companies is cutting off the arm to save the finger. Not only would it NOT weaken the terrorists it would strengthen their ability to hack into other systems, including that used by law-enforcement, but terrorists themselves will always have crypto that keeps them one step ahead of the law. And still this makes sense to some people.
mortimer says
I agree with the principle of ‘SECURITY FOR ALL’. However, can the Apple company not do the decryption securely themselves on their premises, provide the decrypted communications to the FBI and preserve their proprietary secrets?
That way, under no other circumstance but with a proper court order, customers can be assured their rights will not be violated by the state.
With a proper court order, law enforcement has been wiretapping and opening male for a long time. I see this as a similar issue.
WorkingClassPost says
That’s exactly right.
If there was vital information locked in a criminal’s safe, for example, the manufacturer would send out a specialist locksmith to open that one safe for the authorities, they would not be expected to provide a master-key that could unlock every other safe that they produced too.
JW says
Exactly!!! Why aren’t more people asking this question.
Rev g says
Apple already said they do not have means to do this currently.
So you think that the FBI can bully a company into putting men to work to develop the decryption, to the benefit of the FBI and detriment of the company, pro bono?
If the fees had the money, they would task their own men to do it.
And. ..you think the decryption would not leak out, in part or whole, soon to become common knowledge, and make the phone obsolete?
Wanna buy a bridge, cheap?
Tom101 says
i agree with mortimer ……they don’t have to give the encryption code to the FBI but just the information on the phone itself .
what is wrong with that.
Jay Boo says
Bruce Schneier, Washington Post says that —
“Authorities have the phone in their lawful possession”
One option might be to hand over the phone to Apple and have Apple send back only the data on this particular phone.
That would break the chain of possession and could make the evidence obtained inadmissible in court but at least the FBI would have the evidence.
Mark Swan says
Yep
Jack Holan says
Didn’t the FBI brag how the listened in on all the Cabinet members of Israel including Netanyahu. Who knows maybe they have the ‘Key’ but after treating them like an enemy State and revealing their nuclear secrets I doubt they will admit to having any such key. Didn’t Apple and Steve Jobs provide data from I-Phones in the past upon presentation of a lawful instrument such as a Subpoena signed by a sitting Judge. What the Government and Obama is trying to do, such as they have for 7-years, skip the lawful process and go the illegal route. Why? They feel there will be times their case will be too thin to get a lawful (due process) instrument. The Constitutional Scholar, Harvard Graduate studied the Constitution hard in my opinion to circumvent it. This has been all he has done as President.
Karen says
1) Let Apple do the unlock and retrieval, and hand off *only* the data to the government. This keeps the solution completely on their side. Apple is managing the security of their technology within the corporation today, as it is.
2) Keep it rare; give the government 5 instances of this solution over 5 years. They can burn through all 5 in a month, or choose their battles wisely.
PRCS says
Agree with #1. The device’s data is all that police agencies need.
Disagree with #2. Should be done whenever a court order compels them to do so. The contents of communications devices with less stringent security parameters are accessed per those orders all the time.
IMO, Apple’s employees and bigwigs undoubtedly envisioned such a scenario when they developed the encryption algorithm. I don’t know if they did develop coding for that purpose at the time or not, but it’s difficult to imagine they didn’t and that they aren’t just pretending to have not done so in order to keep current and prospective customers from freaking out.
Karen says
PRCS, you are likely right on item 2. But, wishful thinking, having a somewhat arbitrary limit coud have one benefit-it might make law enforcement to come to terms about the true nature of the threat.
Don McKellar says
No matter how you frame this, it is still another fail for Obama.
Why weren’t these people stopped? Obama fail.
How did this crazy Muslima get into the US in the first place? Obama fail.
Why weren’t they monitored properly? Obama fail.
Why doesn’t the FBI have the tools to track jihadis properly? Obama fail.
Why doesn’t the FBI have the tools to open up a common phone like this? Obama fail.
Yes, it is of very serious concern in an age where we have Obama in the White House and Hillary Clinton with a chance to get in there, for any more privacy to be taken away. There is nothing a left-fascist loves more than invasion of privacy and subversion of liberty except maybe enforced political correctness. However, now we must assume that every jihadi now in the modern, advanced world — and there are THOUSANDS of them, many of them straight off the boat, literally — are now up to speed on how to keep their fellow infidel killers and co-conspirators safe with an iphone.
Deborah Taylor says
I’m a Republican and 9/11 happened, who’s watch was it then. Apple should open this phone and not the FBI. Considering they can’t keep their owe computer’s safe.
Nimrod says
This is a PR hoax. Apple is trying to pretend that its devices are more secure than they actually are. In reality they are “hackable” and you don’t need to be apple to do it.
Behind the scenes, a much different story is playing out.
The only real issue that might be a problem for the government is encrypted communications intercepted en route. This is an actual encryption cracking or key escrow problem. However once you have physical possession of hardware, encryption is no longer a real issue unless someone is actually wiling to memorize a key with 128 bits of entropy. Consumers aren’t willing to do that, and vendors aren’t willing to let them try. As a result, large keys are stored hidden on devices, ideally behind a smartcard-like trusted computing facility. So the weak link will always be software or hardware exploits at this point. You don’t need to be the manufacturer to make exploits, though the manufacturer can certainly assist with the process.
There is absolutely zero chance that there’s no backdoor in the trusted computing facility (a separate micro controller similar to the smartcard chip on credit cards, but permanently embedded in the device) on a consumer grade device.
There are secret laws on the books. I don’t know exactly what they are but it should be pretty obvious especially after the Snoden leak.
Don McKellar says
There is a good chance you are right. It doesn’t really add up that Apple doesn’t have a backdoor to their own device. That doesn’t make any sense. If they don’t want to give the FBI their stuff, fine. But there is no way that the FBI can’t show up with the phone and Apple can’t crack it and give them what they want and then the FBI can be on their way.
“The only real issue that might be a problem for the government is encrypted communications intercepted en route.” This make sense.
Custos Custodum says
Great points – thank you.
Quite a few of the very public “spats” that were staged since 9/11 were aimed at bringing into the open and make available for regular use by the FBI, DEA etc. techniques that had long been used by the NSA.
Indeed, it is quite likely that many of these techniques are already in regular use – illegally and secretly – by the FBI, DEA, DHS, and your local dog catcher. (After all, having a chihuahua off the leash is probably against a local ordinance.)
mmichlin says
There are so many unclear statements around the legal fight between FBI and Apple regarding the San Bernardino terrorist’s iPhone.
First, Apple already provided the data from the phone that were backed up on the iCloud. Does that mean that Apple already possess the ability to decipher and get access to everybody’s data on the iCloud? If yes, so what’s all this talk about privacy? If no, then explain to me how Apple got access to the terrorist’s data but cannot do that with anybody else?
Second, there is inconsistency between the claim that resetting the iCloud password prevented the data to be backed up and another claim that the auto-backup was disabled by the terrorist himself (that’s why the iCloud doesn’t have anything from one-and-a-half months before the attack). See here: http://abcnews.go.com/US/san-bernardino-shooters-apple-id-passcode-changed-government/story?id=37066070.
And third – the actual request from the FBI to Apple to do something to disable the auto-erase feature and other features that prevent the brute-force attack on the 4-digit PIN (just 10000 possible combinations). I don’t know how even Apple can update the operating system on the locked phone. And if this is impossible, I would be absolutely satisfied with this; however, this is not what Apple are saying. They are saying that this will build a “backdoor” that others (including the FBI) will be able to use in the future. That doesn’t make any sense to me – especially because the FBI said that they will be OK if Apple keeps the specially built iOS version to themselves (or even destroy it) – the FBI is only interested in the contents of this particular phone.
Let’s assume, that Apple does have a way to upload a new iOS version on a locked phone (although this is already should be a red flag for privacy advocates). In this case, there might be an easy compromise between the FBI and Apple. The FBI gives the phone to Apple, Apple upgrades the iOS, discovers the PIN, restores the previous iOS version and returns the phone and the PIN to the FBI. It seems very sensible compromise to me.
I am in favor of Apple and Google and all other vendors to build systems that allow users to protect their data so that even these vendors cannot circumvent the security features. In this case, if the government comes with the request to access the data, the answer will be very simple: there is no even remotely possible way to do it. In this case, the users are protected not only from the government but also from the vendors themselves, which is a very good thing. However, in this particular case, since Apple doesn’t deny that they can do it, I think they should do it.
Westman says
It looks like the proposed method is tricking the phone to accept and download an operating system update that includes the backdoor. That could readily be used on other iphones.
mmichlin says
The magical word “backdoor” doesn’t mean anything in this context. If apple can update the iOS with the feature that unlocks the phone, they will reset it back to the iOS version that doesn’t have that feature. Nobody will get that update and it will not be readily available to anybody – just like the Apple’s signing private key is not available to anybody.
Also if Apple can do such an update, they can do it today, which means it is under full control of Apple and whoever has the control of their signing private key.
Westman says
I imagine the FBI could isolate the phone to one of their own LANs and spoof the Apple server; downloading the update into that phone. The phone wouldn’t know the difference. The ability of the FBI to hack the phone would only depend on having posession of it.
Myxlplik says
I would side with the FBI if we were officially at war with a definable entity or ideology which it recognized as an existential threat to the future of our Republic and Western Civilization, which would mean total war against said threat.
Myxlplik says
To add:
Such a thing would be along the same lines of temporary power given to block a certain creed of persons from entry, or deportations based upon said creed. It’s on the same level as say, the enternment of the Japanese during WW2.
Westman says
The FBI painted themselves into a corner while messing with the phone:
http://www.macrumors.com/2016/02/19/apple-government-changed-apple-id-password/
“The [Apple] executives said the company had been in regular discussions with the government since early January, and that it proposed four different ways to recover the information the government is interested in without building a back door. One of those methods would have involved connecting the phone to a known wifi network.
Apple sent engineers to try that method, the executives said, but the experts were unable to do it. It was then that they discovered that the Apple ID passcode associated with the phone had been changed.”
“According to Apple, the Apple ID password on the iPhone was changed ‘less than 24 hours’ after being in government hands. ”
So a situation was created by the FBI that made downloading a hacked operating system as the only remaining solution. Essentially the solution means handing the entire operating system, with back door, to the FBI and hope it never gets used again.
That’s something like going off to the Crusades and giving the key to the wife’s chastity belt to a stranger for safekeeping.
The phone isn’t the real problem. The real problem is the tribal attitude of a Muslim’s Islamic indoctrination that it is them against the infidels and vice versa. If the FBI gets into the phone there will be information about some other Muslims, terrorists or not, who knew an attack was imminent but said nothing to authorities. In that sense there have been no “lone wolf” attacks – some Muslim knew this person, likely radicalized at a Mosque or online, and either ecouraged it or remained quiet; even after trying to dissuade any action.
Unlocking a phone isn’t going to change the anti-infidel undercurrent. In the Muslim mind, this is lttle different than when the IRA was involved in “the troubles” in Ireland. Nobody was turning in the terrorists.
Myxlplik says
True, and the Obama Administration inadvertently tips it’s concealed hand when it asked for the power.
The power should not be given while it holds its cards to its chest.
I’m so thankful to Robert for writing this article, because all this pilling on the “Libtards” at Apple belies the real issue, which is that it’s too much power, based upon the publicaly admitted state of things regarding the “Religion of Peace”.
Confectioner says
Obama says, ‘If you like your iPhone secure plan, you’ll be able to keep your iPhone secure plan’
Voytek Gagalka says
Fully agree. That reflects my own views which I expressed already few days ago at Pamela Geller’s site, at the following link:
https://www.facebook.com/pamelageller/posts/10154099827472439
isntlam says
How is taking data from an iPhone any different from taking the contents of any file cabinet or hard drive? It is something done all the time in crime investigation. I don’t see any difference. Apple seems to be in the business of supporting terrorists.
Rev g says
Apple isn’t hiding anything or helping anyone. They just won the help the FBI.
marc says
Here is a forensic scientist’s reasoning on why Apple must not do this for the FBI
http://www.zdziarski.com/blog/?p=5645
I’ve also willingly complied with and requested court orders (UK & Canada), to hack encrypted data, and (proudly) put some nasty people away after preparing reports for the court.
In all but one case, I’ve used well known off the shelf tools, but in the one case I had used my own, the chain of custody report required the detailed source code of my (rather simple) tool, so anyone could replicate my findings. That is the rules of evidence, which I belive are identical in the US.
If anyone has any difficulty in understanding zdziarski, let me know.
i says
So they would be able to get information off someone’s phone. How is that any different what is done is every other criminal investigation where data is taken from unsecured storage? Why should terrorists have their privacy protected?
marc says
there is no existing “backdoor” in this security system, breaking this security would break it for everyone. It would be the same answer if any law enforcement agency went to apple to request this access for any criminals phone with this security feature enabled.
Tom Linsenbigler says
First of all, Apple has unlocked phones for the FBI at least 70 times before — in drug trafficking cases and others. Secondly, the FBI is not asking for a ‘backdoor’ to the software to be written. They only want Apple to retrieve the data from one particular phone and give it to them. Thirdly, the phone is OWNED by the government as the center where the jihadis worked in San Bernardino is a government entity and they supplied the phone for use by the jihadi.
Rev g says
Um, they have not opened this version of phone.
Of course, San Bernadino County Government is also not the same as the Federal government, as in FBI.
Wellington says
“Um, they have not opened this version of phone.”
So what? Apple either can or can’t. If Apple can, then do it and give the information on this particular phone to the FBI. Or give it to San Bernadino county officials since the county owns the damn phone who can then share the information with the federal government. What the hell is the big deal here? No one should be able to hide behind privacy defenses and thereby provide cover for criminal activity. I’ll repeat that just so it sinks in. No one should be able to hide behind privacy defenses and thereby provide cover for criminal activity.
If Apple can’t decrypt, then why didn’t it just say so? Why all the crap about privacy taken to actual abuse of privacy? And why wouldn’t any company like Apple openly declare that they value privacy greatly but will help federal authorities where criminal activity, and in particular Islamic terrorism, the greatest single menace of our time, is at issue (including developing new technology to do so) since no one should have the right to use a privacy defense in order to deny information about Islamic terrorism.
I value freedom. I value privacy. Anyone averring otherwise about me has it dead wrong. But I also value not being terminated by Islamic extremists. Remember, the Constitution is not a suicide pact and the matter of privacy versus security for the nation is not always going to be a black and white route to follow. Sometimes a trade-off has to occur and oh, btw, if you think, as you asserted on another thread, that a scenario whereby a biological or chemical WMD killing hundreds of thousands in a major metropolitan area in America is just pie-in-the sky stuff, then you are living in an even narrower universe than I first supposed. Such a scenario is possible and one knows this or should know it. And privacy concerns should never be taken to a point where the society as a whole is in major jeopardy.
Again, the Constitution is not a suicide pact and the federal government should not be treated as the bad guys. A presumption of innocence should be accorded federal official like those in the FBI and CIA (and if a rogue member of the federal government abuses their authority then they should be prosecuted). The bad guys believe in Mo and Allah and, in the realm of common sense though not technically the law, a presumption of guilt should be accorded to these poor excuses for human beings and sensible federal officials should proceed accordingly. This ain’t rocket science nor is it an infringement of constitutional guarantees of privacy as outlined in numerous Supreme Court cases, for instance the 1965 Griswold case.
Rev g says
Apple is not on trial here, nor a suspect of any kind.
They are not obligated in any way to “help” the FBI. The FBI can’t open the phone, even with all there techies?
Neither can Apple, right now. Why should the FBI be able to coerce them into spending man/hours doing such a thing?
That all before even factoring in privacy concerns.
It isn’t rocket science.
Wellington says
Apple is indeed not on trial, nor is Apple a suspect, but to claim that no obligation falls upon Apple here is to be deficient, significantly so, in the realms of ethics and common sense.
Law divorced from ethics and common sense is arid law. And even worse than aridity can be lethalness if privacy concerns are pushed to an ad absurdum degree. Oh yeah, ain’t rocket science here. No, not at all.
Rev g says
Your ethics must be a bit cock-eyed.
Oh, that’s right, hundreds of thousands of lives lie in the balance, hypothetically. In your imagination.
I guess no hypothetical is too wild, if it helps degenerate the protections of the citizenry.
Think of the children!
If it saves even one life!
Etc…..
awake says
Wellington,
This is an interesting case and an interesting article. It seems that Robert has pasted parts of the article with no personal commentary at all. I know Robert’s previous posts suggest that Apple can gain the information the FBI is asking for from the phone, but that has not been explicitly stated as such by Apple as far as I have read. I also read that Robert’s position is that Apple should afford this accommodation in the interests of safety from potential future jihad attacks.
Now, the question whether they should is also a well-balanced consideration for both sides in my estimation. rev g seems to be your pointed foil regarding this.
On face value, and in full disclosure, I tend to lean in the direction that Apple should, if they can, to protect the lives of the US citizenry, if San Bernadino was indeed a smaller portion of a larger plot. That said, the concerns of this technology in the hands of the FBI, or any other intelligence agency here and abroad, should raise immediate concerns. The point being is that we should not take the FBI on their word what their motives are. The FBI, in this instance, is simply an agency working on behalf of the President, and this current President has proven himself to be less than trustworthy on Islam and jihad.
Regardless of the dispositions of either the now-dead jihadists, or the FBI, you can reasonably assume that the issue is not as black and white as both yourself and rev g portray it to be, no?
Wellington says
Forget my hypothetical; I only provided such to prove that your take on the law is wrong.
So, just look at the instance du jour, i.e., the Apple case. You and I are on opposite sides and I assert you are on the wrong side. Prove me wrong, preferably with reference to Supreme Court cases like Lochner and Griswold. Your turn.
Rev g says
Case law does not prove right or wrong, only decision of that court, at that time.
You would surrender people’s rights and force a corporation to perform pro Bono work that undermines it’s own product, in order to cover a federal agencies incompetence?
Like I said, your ethics are cock-eyed.
Rev g says
Your hypothetical did not prove me wrong, it only showed how good you are at exaggeration for effect. You never did explain your outlandish claim.
Wellington says
awake: I am a Jeffersonian liberal, which is to say I am a Reagan conservative, but your contention that we should “not take the FBI on their word” is dispositive of an enormous problem in and of itself, to wit, that there has developed an animosity, if not hatred, of the federal government which I consider both unwise and ominous, even though I personally would welcome a much reduced federal government (e.g., abolishing the Department of Education, which has never done a single positive thing that I know of in its entire existence and which sucks up billions of dollars every year).
Surely, Obama has been dismal. In my opinion, easily the worst President in American history, but I don’t think this should translate into looking at an agency like the FBI as, in effect, guilty until proven innocent. And yet this is pretty much what is going on with all those taking the side of Apple over the FBI.
To assert that privacy as implicitly guaranteed by the Constitution, and as put forth by Justice Douglas in the Griswold case, should extend to denying the federal government full access to a device used by an Islamic killer, all in the name of privacy, serves as ipso facto evidence for me of how theory can be taken to a point of potential societal suicide.
Rev g I expect to remain clueless of what I am talking about here, but I hope that more reasonable minds like yourself, awake, will not enter into the realm of having the Constitution become a suicide pact.
Yes, security concerns are not absolute, but neither are privacy concerns. And I don’t look upon the FBI as the bad guys. The “other” guys are. And I think you know by now who these other very bad guys are.
Just imagine if Apple refused to cooperate with the FBI about encryption should some Islamic Bozo have used an Apple device and said under intensive interrogation (preferably water boarding, loud noise and sleep deprivation if I had my way) that on that device, which the FBI can’t crack, there is information about a WMD being used to wipe our most of an American major city. Still want to take Apple’s part?
Your turn, awake.
Rev g says
Nobody is denying the government any access to anything. Is that really that hard to understand?
Apple has made clear that it has no method available to provide access, and has no plans to do so. They feel that offering assistance is not in their best interests.
They have not tried to prevent the government from seeking other avenues of doing so .
Wellington says
Claim? What claim? I merely provided a hypothetical (a fairly realistic one but no matter) to demonstrate to you the parameters of the Constitution where security v. privacy is concerned. BTW, if Supreme Court case law does not prove you wrong (or right), then what the hell are you invoking to argue you are correct? Or are you even above the SC in understanding the Constitution?
You know, I’m beginning to have fun with you. It’s not quite ethical of me to do so but the enjoyment is beginning to outweigh the morality of it all since I don’t think you know what the hell you are talking about.
Rev g says
Your claim regarding hundreds of thousands of lives at stake. Did you forget?
Please show me all the terrorist actions that have resulted in fatality counts in the hundreds of thousands I can’t find any. That suggests that your hypothetical was utter crap. Hardly a realistic “what if”.
awake says
Wellington,
I was unaware that we were “taking turns” in this discussion. I apologize in advance for stating that this situation might be a grey matter, or questioning your absolute authority on this issue.
Your claim that :
“Surely, Obama has been dismal. In my opinion, easily the worst President in American history, but I don’t think this should translate into looking at an agency like the FBI as, in effect, guilty until proven innocent.”
I never stated that the FBI is de facto, untrustworthy. I simply that they serve at the behest of the sitting president, in this case Obama, who has proven himself untrustworthy on the subject of jihad to date, which until I am proven otherwise, is irrefutable.
“To assert that privacy as implicitly guaranteed by the Constitution, and as put forth by Justice Douglas in the Griswold case, should extend to denying the federal government full access to a device used by an Islamic killer, all in the name of privacy, serves as ipso facto evidence for me of how theory can be taken to a point of potential societal suicide.”
I asserted absolutely no such thing. I believe Franklin had something to say about that. Something historical, but not necessarily relevant today regarding this issue.
Like I said, and which you apparently ignored, I tend to lean towards Robert’s and your side of this argument. I did express reservations on the intent of the FBI, especially under the current administration. To me, it seems unusual that this is becoming an issue now, quite a bit of time after the actual jihadi incident, no?
Wellington says
I put forth a hypothetical, it wasn’t a claim, to see if you would ever put security over privacy concerns. That was my point. I would assert, though, that a biological or chemical WMD killing huge numbers is not something that should simply be dismissed. It you want to consider that a claim, then so be it.
Rev g says
You claimed it was a realistic hypothetical. Apparently reality isn’t very realistic in your eyes.
Rev g says
No phone that I am aware of, no terror attack I am aware of in the west, has endangered the lives of hundreds of thousands. You said it was realistic, it is not. Now you try to assert it as a test, an extreme, not something realistic. It can’t be both. You claimed it as realistic numerous times.
Deflecting with allusions to styles of weapon does not make your claimed hypothetical less delusional.
I explained quite explicitly after the claim was made why it was so, you just don’t like you bs pointed out.
Wellington says
I’m sorry, awake, if I came across in a strident fashion. Reg g has irked me because of his tendency to completely dismiss arguments that differ from his, replete with calling a person a coward or doing the job of the jihadists, etc. My response to you was far more a refutation of rev g than anything you asserted but I can understand how you might have thought otherwise. Mea culpa.
There’s no question in my mind that privacy concerns and security concerns are both extremely important and sometimes there has to be a trade off. Where the worst menace that faces us in our time, Islamic terrorism, is concerned I’m inclined to give great, though not complete, latitude to federal authorities. Obama is temporary but federal agencies are going to stick around a long time. I know some people who work for them, including a former student of mine, and these people are good folks and are more independent of the Obama Administration than many might initially think.
Again, sorry for any misunderstanding and I take full blame for this. Take good care.
gravenimage says
Good posts, Wellington.
Mike says
Why can’t Apple open it for the FBI without giving them the software to do it? Just give the phone to Apple, say, unlock it and give it back, we don’t care how you do it.
PRCS says
The FBI needs neither the software nor the phone.
Just the data.
Once the data has been extracted and given to the FBI (and the device has been wiped and had a clean operating system installed) the San Bernardino County folks should consider putting the phone on Ebay and use the–likely–substantial profit to replenish their coffers.
pdxnag says
Apple can fix the current loophole in the next generation of iPhone. They have apparently failed at making it impossible even for them to break into this iPhone. Call it a bug that they will have to patch.
Great technical article:
Apple’s FBI Battle Is Complicated. Here’s What’s Really Going On
http://www.wired.com/2016/02/apples-fbi-battle-is-complicated-heres-whats-really-going-on/
JIMJFOX says
RUBBISH! You are siding with and protecting terrorist murderers!
Hackers will continue to gain access to ALL security systems, with
or without help. The only concern we should have is what is on THEIR
iPhones; technology paranoia is not the answer. I don’t give a sh*t as
to who knows what’s on MY phone because it is not connected to terrorism…
Custos Custodum says
You seem to be unaware of how easily governments can slip into totalitarian abuse. Read up in a bit more detail on what happened over the past 100 years in countries such Russia, Germany, China, North Korea, Cambodia, Rwanda, Iran, etc. (and more recently and inchoately, even Great Britain)
gravenimage says
Jim, the above is the headline from the Washington Post–not necessarily Robert Spencer’s views.
underbed cat says
Serving terrorists, and infidels alike should be the new advertising. Haven’t they already pinged various locations thru cell phone towers? Just like the car commercial that had an ad with bank robbers. Yes I want my information protected but I know it is pure fantasy. The government knows every thing about you, except the conversations of people who want to do harm…. i really don’t get it. Information is power and in this situation the power is in the wrong hands.
JIMJFOX says
Best security- put a hammer thru the phone…
Myxlplik says
Impeccable logic, when the current tactics of •whack a mole• becomes tiresome, double down and just hit harder.
Mark Swan says
As Bart Simpson would say damned if you do and damned if you don’t…this idea that technology will be used in some expected way is just that…an idea…Putting unjustified confidence in a convenient device…by entering personal information that You just can not afford to reveal…is a real mistake that is made on a daily basis by far to many people…Yes They have that right and choice…but it is something they must live with…their choice…if it gets got.
Osama bin Laden…found out what a dangerous toy His mobile phone became…and stopped using it.
Cyber war is very real…not just words that describe our fledgling computer age…still in flux…but real…and of very great concern…with all of the Nations lined up against Us…where there is a will there is a way….You better believe it.
The entire job of an adversary is to look for weak spots to attack.
Here is A Very Real Possibility…a Horrific Nightmare Waiting To Happen…at any moment.
http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/7214/electro-magnetic-pulse-emp
Ashley says
This is a tough one.
I’m not tech-savvy…have no idea how this “backdoor encryption” stuff works.
I think we would all like to know what is on that phone. Farook and Malik made damn sure to lock her up tight. Personally, I would love to know their contacts, their activity, their associations, their jihadi aspirations, etc. The data on that phone *could* be a blockbuster and reveal extremely valuable information.
And yet we don’t want to throw the baby out with the bath water. If Apple concedes to the FBI request, it would set a dangerous precedent…
My guess is that the families of the San Bernardino victims sorely hope Apple will comply with the directive. I agree with the voices here that say Apple extracts the data, turns it over, and says “never again” and makes a big fucking fuss that this is THE exception and not the rule. IN WRITING. UNDER LEGAL CONTRACT.
Again…a tough call. I have mixed feelings on the issue.
I appreciate that Robert has opined on the matter…it has troubled me for the past couple of days.
Custos Custodum says
Reposted from other thread
Electronic Evidence from Cell Phone Use already Available to FBI
Note: Islamic State, Al Qaeda and any criminal organization worth its salt all know the techniques listed below. Meanwhile, please spare a thought for hardworking and loyal FBI agents – there are still many of them – who are forced to play along with these demeaning charades.
(1) Full Location Information. Cell phone location at all times when cell phone was active, whether or not calls were made. Measured through cell tower triangulation and/or GPS (E911), available from phone service provider.
(2) SMS Messages. Full text, time stamps, sender/recipient info is logged by phone service provider and available there. Also, cell phone location at time or sending/receipt (or any other time), see above.
(3) Phone Call Data. Numbers of all calls made/received, time and duration of all calls are logged by phone service provider. In addition, calls themselves may have been recorded e.g. if FISA warrant or informal surveillance order was in place. Also, location at time of calls (or any other time), see (1) above.
(4) Internet IP Addresses. Phone service providers log the IP address of every website with which the cell phone interacted at any time. The IP address fully identifies the website. Many websites – e.g. Google – keep extensive records of all interactions. For example, Google or Bing would have full records of all information looked up using the pone in question.
(5) App information. Specifically, Google Maps, Whatsapp and most other smartphone apps interact with the respective service providers who keep logs. All such interactions are logged by service providers.
This leaves the question – what information could be stored on the phone that was NOT communicated through one of the above methods?
Mark Breza says
But you, Robert Spencer, think what your doing is proactive;
when a fair amount of citizens think you just like to throw gasoline on a fire ?
Custos Custodum says
Mr. Spencer has raised and intelligently discussed a profound and extremely serious question that would trouble any ordinary American with a Middle School education.
Educated Americans know that these issues were key concerns to the founding fathers – reread the Federalist Papers.
Are you an American, sir?
Or are you knowingly or unknowingly just running interference for a subversive enemy with your Alinskyite rhetoric?
Mo says
@ Mark Breza
“But you, Robert Spencer, think what your doing is proactive;
when a fair amount of citizens think you just like to throw gasoline on a fire ?”
Either address the substance of this post, or take your vague accusations by anonymous “fair amount of citizens” elsewhere. This is not a place for games. Is that clear?
gravenimage says
Mark Breza wrote:
But you, Robert Spencer, think what your doing is proactive;
when a fair amount of citizens think you just like to throw gasoline on a fire ?
…………………..
In other words, how dare Robert Spencer speak out against Jihad?
Mark Swan says
Yep…Maybe So
Angemon says
Mark Breza posted:
“But you, Robert Spencer, think what your doing is proactive;
when a fair amount of citizens think you just like to throw gasoline on a fire ?”
Last time I checked, truthfulness was not dependent on popular opinion.
somehistory says
When they were looking for the guys in Boston…the one that was run over by his brother and the brother who hid in the boat, they went into all of the homes in the neighborhood…searching without permission and without warrants…because they could.
If they can get into any phone or other personal device, there is nothing to keep them from doing so…much like they did in the physical search…because they are *looking for the bad guys.*
Weren’t they doing this already to senators, reps and foreign leaders? Wasn’t there a big flap when the reps and senators and foreign leaders found out?
But when they find the bad guys are communicating with each other and mention anything about islam…well then, that has to be deleted from their listening and capturing devices.
We are living in the *time of the end.* Things are going from bad to worse and will continue to until the end.
gravenimage says
Somehistory wrote:
When they were looking for the guys in Boston…the one that was run over by his brother and the brother who hid in the boat, they went into all of the homes in the neighborhood…searching without permission and without warrants…because they could.
……………………..
Somehistory, I am not necessarily uncritical of every action made by police and security, but do you *really* believe that law enforcement looking for the armed Boston Bombers *was a bad thing*?
If I knew police were looking for dangerous Jihadists, I would not have a problem with giving them access to my property, warrants or not.
Rev g says
And every day, or week, a new manhunt for an important suspect….cuz you are so keen to open your house to help
Champ ✿ says
Can’t Apple access this phone, themselves, to obtain the information that the FBI wants and simply hand it over to the FBI? This way Apple can maintain their security and privacy rights, etc, and then everyone is happy. Seems simple enough to me. What am I missing, here?
somehistory says
Part of it has to do with chain of custody…it has to stay in the possession of the authorities so if it is ever used in court, the defense would not be able to say someone tampered with it.
And I believe they just want to be able to get in all of the phones when they wish to. Power…corrupts.
Champ ✿ says
Thank you, Somehistory, I hadn’t thought of that. Great point.
Champ says
BTW, I agree that the FBI should have this information since a crime was committed.
Custos Custodum says
So whenever any crime is committed, the FBI should be able to grab any information it wants, without warrants or other supervision, “since a crime was committed”?
If the neighbor across the road commits welfare fraud, an FBI SWAT team should be allowed to break down your door and search YOUR home at 4 am “since a crime was committed”?
Rev g says
This information is on a phone that one of the killers possessed. No problem, the FBI should be able to have the info. They have it, it is just inaccessible. They have people who can work on that.
Apple doesn’t have a way to access it currently, so go to it Feebs. Hire the best tech geek you can, just stop trying to extort a company into helping you when it isn’t in there best interests.
The ramifications of the results are not pretty.
Champ says
You’re taking my second comment out of context. Read part 1, as well.
Sam says
Well if I could trust the government I would say “go FBI you do it”. I don’t trust Obama and the company. Under a trustworthy government ruled by the constitution, the phone should be deciphered and the info would lead to other Jihadis I am pretty sure. As of now I am not sure who to trust. I don’t trust Apple either as they are (rightfully) after their reputation and profits.
The only thing I know America is becoming more and more like the rest of the world. Less and less exceptional with a lot of idiots believing that government can take care of them and the problem is American greed causing all the problems in the world. We are screwed.
Angemon says
Samposted:
“Well if I could trust the government I would say “go FBI you do it”.”
That’s the thing: even if the current administration were trustworthy, permission wasn’t being given to the individual people composing the government, it would be given to the government. What if/when someone untrustworthy came into power?
obiwan says
Would there be the same problem if the FBI gave the phone to Apple and contracted them to get all the data and give just that data to the FBI?
This would not be the same thing as giving the FBI the software to hack it, but would make us safer by getting the data the FBI wants.
Charles R.L. Power says
I didn’t expect this site to uphold Apple, but I agree completely. If the security can be broken, it can be broken by people outside Apple. For Apple to break it would be a confession either that it had installed a backdoor or that they were incompetent in guaranteeing security. The government is demanding something which may be impossible to provide. We’ll see whether John McAfee can solve the problem. Putting someone outside of Apple on the problem is the right approach.
PRCS says
By the time the government vs Apple litigation has run it’s course, McAfee could likely have done just what he has asserted. And I don’t think he’d have to eat his shoes.
gravenimage says
The above is just the headline from the Washington Post, not from Robert Spencer.
Mark Swan says
Right
Myxlplik says
Look ladies and gents we need to be logical about this.
First of all, if what we think about Islam and demographics is true, then this move by the Feds against Apple is just a shot of Adavan for the frog in hot water. It is essentially an attack on the frog.
If they do this people will still die, and the rules of the conflict won’t change. The frog is upset right now and rightly so, but I doubt a shot of narcotics will help.
If the government really wants that power it can gain the trust of the people by first of all declassifying all of the 9/11 report, then duck walking all the perps even if they include the entire Saudi Royal family.
Oceanside says
Problem is, every terrorist, murderer, drug king pin, etc is going to hide behind encryption now. Since all the records that USED to be on paper are now encrypted, there’s no hope of a successful conviction of any criminal with an iPhone.
Not a fan of the FBI but Apple needs to figure out a way to get them the data without handing them a key.
Rev g says
Believe it or not, people still use secret codes and paper and books to convey secrets. Maybe we need to find a way to stop that too, it has been going on for centuries.
How dare anyone value privacy in communications.
Custos Custodum says
Yes, by all means lets flush the U.S. Constitution away for the sake of a pretend prosecution by a government whose top officials have shown themselves singularly uninterested in stemming the tide of Islamic terrorism.
Actually, under our quaint Constitution, we intentionally release thousands of criminals (statistically highly likely to be guilty) without punishment every day because the restrictive search and arrest procedures in the specific case did not produce sufficient evidence for a valid conviction under the demanding legal standards under the U.S. Constitution.
There is an express trade off between punishing and deactivating criminals, and protecting the freedom of the individual.
Given the particulars of the San Bernardino case, the perpetrators are both dead, and any co-conspirators will have fled the U.S. long ago. The purported FBI investigation is a wild goose chase.
Custos Custodum says
The bad guys have known for decades that electronic communications are easy to track and thus dangerous. This is why Osama Bin Laden is said to have relied on personal couriers to communicate with the outside world.
Justsayan2 says
Chain of Custody is not really a problem here. The custodian of the evidence must follow the Federal Rules of Evidence (FRE 901 et seq.) for proper authentication. A private citizen can be such a custodian, as well as a Federal Law Enforcement officer, or any expert so appointed.
scherado says
I’ve always thought that the solution would be to get the FBI and Apple together in a room with the phone, have Apple extract (copy) the phone’s memory, hand it to the FBI, end of story.
Maybe that’s too simple.
Custos Custodum says
See related post listing information that is already available to FBI:
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2016/02/san-bernardino-jihad-murderers-icloud-password-changed-while-iphone-was-in-government-possession#comment-1383490
More BS anyone? says
What a LOAD of BS. The FBI And media are just trying to gauge public reaction. So ludicrous is this little scenario…built upon the base of a false flag event. if the FBI pull it off, Have the public support in hacking the phone, well hats off to them then.
Oh yeah…and they are using the right wing to get there too…..laughing their asses off, because the right wing that are so gunho about the whole let’s get the terrorist/Muslim scenario without seeing the bigger picture, will be the first ones that will be all for this current FBI invasion, social control scenario.
Mo says
@ More BS anyone?
“What a LOAD of BS. The FBI And media are just trying to gauge public reaction. So ludicrous is this little scenario…built upon the base of a false flag event. if the FBI pull it off, Have the public support in hacking the phone, well hats off to them then.
Oh yeah…and they are using the right wing to get there too…..laughing their asses off, because the right wing that are so gunho about the whole let’s get the terrorist/Muslim scenario without seeing the bigger picture, will be the first ones that will be all for this current FBI invasion, social control scenario.”
Take a breath and then your meds. You sound like you’re ready to hyperventilate.
Mark Swan says
Many use the word right wing…nationalist…or any other derogatory approach in
trying to force an opinion…be more specific or polite at least…try it maybe what
You say will appear intelligible…maybe.
What is Your take on the bigger picture.
Mark Swan says
@More BS anyone?
Many use the word right wing…nationalist…or any other derogatory approach in
trying to force an opinion…be more specific or polite at least…try it maybe what
You say will appear intelligible…maybe.
What is Your take on the bigger picture.
More BS anyone? says
Dad…is that you?
That’s all you zipped out of my post (: “right wing”. This term is only demonized because of the gov, because of the media. Thought we were all concerned about our freedom of speech and all that. We are all adults no? that are capable of having a discussion without censoring each other. If you don’t like what I say, you don’t have to take it in, it’s that simple (;
More BS anyone? says
Your comment actually made me laugh out loud. I’m still chuckling.
Custos Custodum says
It is certainly true – as noted above – that nobody expects the San Bernardino investigation to provide any further actionable information. The perpetrators of the action are dead, and any co-conspirators have long made good their escape.
What we are seeing can only be explained as a PR exercise to rip another chunk out of our mutilated and bleeding Constitution.
Rev g says
Referencing this as a “false flag” damages your credibility.
The government does not need to concoct such events as this in order to justify further infringing essential freedoms. All they need to do is capitalize on every such event, regardless of the motive behind it.
Such tactics are not party-centric, though it was in the current administration that it was stated to let no crisis go to waste.
More BS anyone? says
Rev, agreed, capitalizing on such events is like a gift. Using the term “false flag” loosing my credibility, well…it doesn’t matter, I’m not the Queen on England, nor the president of the United States to have to choose my words so carefully.
Going back to the point you made….history has shown that similar events have been coordinated, taken place, so as to sway the public into entering wars for instance. So should we really rule out that this is not happening now to get to the objective (whatever it maybe) faster?
Rev g says
I would rule it out simply for the lack of probable effect.
Not like it would coax anyone into a war or have a measured demoralizing effect, etc…
more BS anyone? says
Hmmm….it sure made people panick though….and from small things, big things grow
But Rev what you say has sense… And it would be so much easier if this whole mess came with a manual with illustrations.
gravenimage says
The aptly self-styled “More BS anyone?” wrote:
What a LOAD of BS. The FBI And media are just trying to gauge public reaction. So ludicrous is this little scenario…built upon the base of a false flag event.
………………………..
A “false flag event”–in other words, this creep is claiming it was American law enforcement that murdered 14 people in San Bernardino, not Jihadist Syeed Farook. *Ugh*.
I imagine he is a 9/11 “Truther”, as well.
This is utterly repulsive and false, whatever one’s views on the FBI/Apple issue.
more BS anyone? says
Yikes! gravenimage. Are you really that angry or are you just trying to provoke a reaction? If I honestly offended you with my rant and rave then I apologies, it wasn’t aimed specifically to aggravate you. I believe that these forums are a chance to air things out, to discuss, to learn. And any loss of life, for whatever reason is a real tragedy.
Jehosophat says
If the FBI and the CIA were doing their jobs their agents wouldn’t need backdoors to iPhones. If they can’t do their jobs because their over extended due to too many Muslims being imported into the United States than the Obama administration should stop importing Muslims into the United States.
Rev g says
That makes way too much sense.
Besides, like journalism, good old investigative skills are languishing these days, it is so much easier to justify encroaching essential freedoms, makes the work a lot easier.
People don’t seem to mind, they have nothing to hide, yet.
Carolyne says
If Apple can retrieve the information from that phone they should do so and give the information to the government. However, inventing a whole new technique which would open my phone and your phone and everybody’s phone and giving it to the Federal Government should absolutely not be done. Maybe some of you trust the Federal Government to not be corrupt but remember the IRS giving personal tax information of individuals involved in the Tea Party to other organizations and withholding the tax exempt status from Conservative groups with which the Administration disagreed? How about Obama’s plan to form a domestic army as he said “As well armed and well trained as the traditional military,” when he was first campaigning for the Presidency? Well, do you also remember that the Bureau of Land Management has that militia and demonstrated such at the Bundy ranch. Various agencies, including Social Security, have ordered millions of bullets. What are they going to do with them, shoot old people?
I do not trust any branch of Obama’s government to protect me because I think it is infiltrated with Muslims and I believe him to be one himself. Apple should absolutely refuse to give the FBI carte blanche access to our Iphones,
obiwan says
If Apple refuses to open the phone and simply give FBI the data they should jail the little bitch CEO for contempt of court. Apple is the poster-boy for these hate-America elitists who actually protect militant Muslims. Wouldn’t it be something if the contacts in that terrorist’s iphone open fire on Apple employees?