Apple unlocked at least 70 iPhones before refusing to hack into terrorist’s device

[TaeBoNinja]

Hmm...... http://www.nydailynews.com/news/nati...icle-1.2536178

Apple is fighting the FBI over a court order requiring the tech giant to unlock a terrorist’s iPhone — but it appears the company had no problem breaking into at least 70 other protected smartphones.

The California-based tech giant unlocked dozens of iPhones at federal investigators’ requests between 2008 and 2015, a prosecutor argued last year.

Apple refused to unlock an iPhone that belonged to an accused New York meth dealer in October, months before CEO Tim Cook cited privacy concerns as he pushed back against a Tuesday court order to help FBI agents hack into a cellphone used by San Bernardino shooter Syed Farook.

APPLE UNLOCK RULING EXPLAINED: WHAT YOU NEED TO KNOW

The October refusal bewildered New York prosecutors, who claimed the iPhone maker “complied” with at least 70 other requests to unlock suspects’ phones, Motherboard reported at the time. Each request was made under the All Writs Act, a 1789 statute that grants federal courts broad power to issue "necessary or appropriate" writs.

“(Apple) had an established procedure to routinely take any of these requests, comply with them, processing them,” Assistant U.S. Attorney Saritha Komatireddy said in court.

While Apple lawyers did not object to the claim, they insisted the 70 figure was a government estimate and not a number vetted by the tech company.

[HubertL]

libs gonna lib

[nutsy54]

Considering that date range covers every generation of iPhone - with dramatically different security (as referenced in the article)... The first question would be if they've ever unlocked this model & firmware version of phone, with the method now being requested.

[jro9999]

Media gonna media

So now apple are the bad guys who are pro-terrorist?

[Qong]

Interesting OP.

I think this is a tricky situation and I understand both sides but if Apple (and likely other companies) have already been doing this then I don't understand what their complaints are now. It's a slippery slope in general though. If we give the government more power then they're certainly going to abuse it but one area that the government should have power is in stopping terrorism. How we can ensure that they only use such powers to combat terrorism is the question. We certainly shouldn't be doing it to go after supposed meth dealers and other petty criminals.

[TaeBoNinja]

How we can ensure that they only use such powers to combat terrorism is the question.

The FBI went through the courts from what i've read, and got an order. Which is how we want things to work, with oversight. Also, the owner of the phone is fine with it being unlocked.

[Renegade83]

Considering that date range covers multiple generations of phones with dramatically different security (as referenced in the article)... The first question would be if they've ever unlocked this model & firmware version of phone, with the method now being requested.

This.

[greedyfly13]

Businesses only care about making money, so the question is what does Apple have to gain by this. It seems Apple must have calculated that the free media attention for refusing plus the brownie points they win with anti-government people is well worth refusing. lol at people thinking this shows some great integrity and principles in Apples values. They just want money.

[Qong]

The FBI went through the courts from what i've read, and got an order. Which is how we want things to work, with oversight. Also, the owner of the phone is fine with it being unlocked.

Agreed that that's how we want it to work but courts make bad decisions too. We shouldn't allow the power to bypass encryption to be easily obtained but in certain cases I can see it being warranted. In this case specifically, these people were absolute positive 100% terrorists. People like that deserve no protections.

Also it's interesting (I think it was a poster here in this thread) that it was said that the decryption method would be different depending on what version of the phone they are trying to break into. That seems to offer an awful lot of protection by itself. If that's the case then the tools used would become obsolete by the next generation of software. Doesn't that sort of moot Apple and the tech industry's whole argument?

[zinkhan99]

Media gonna media

So now apple are the bad guys who are pro-terrorist?

No, Apple are the good guys who enable Radical Islam, am I right?

On a serious note, I am against all kinds of backdoor capabilities and such, but if there is a clear case of terrorist attack like San Bernardino, then I am not sure why Apple is making things difficult.

[wings_unhinged]

Considering that date range covers every generation of iPhone - with dramatically different security (as referenced in the article)... The first question would be if they've ever unlocked this model & firmware version of phone, with the method now being requested.

This.

iOS gets a major update each year which includes new security protocols and features.

[TaeBoNinja]

Also it's interesting (I think it was a poster here in this thread) that it was said that the decryption method would be different depending on what version of the phone they are trying to break into. That seems to offer an awful lot of protection by itself. If that's the case then the tools used would become obsolete by the next generation of software. Doesn't that sort of moot Apple and the tech industry's whole argument?

Yes, and considering they've unlocked iPhones before, I would say their argument is falling apart a bit. Would need to know the specifics of previously unlocked phones though, and how they compare to the current situation.

In my opinion, issues of national security backed with court orders, rise to the level of taking action if possible.

[YesWayNoWeigh]

Considering that date range covers every generation of iPhone - with dramatically different security (as referenced in the article)... The first question would be if they've ever unlocked this model & firmware version of phone, with the method now being requested.

gonna have to agree with nutso

[7rmr]

libs gonna lib

As a liberal, I would happily be associated with protecting personal privacy and resisting government overreach. If that's what liberalism is for, what the hell do conservatives support?

[HubertL]

This revelation kinda defeats the "precedence" argument because the argument isn't centered around the method or firmware as to which Apple hacked but the fact that Apple hacked a phone to get its information in the first place by order of the government

[jro9999]

Also it's interesting (I think it was a poster here in this thread) that it was said that the decryption method would be different depending on what version of the phone they are trying to break into. That seems to offer an awful lot of protection by itself. If that's the case then the tools used would become obsolete by the next generation of software. Doesn't that sort of moot Apple and the tech industry's whole argument?

No it doesnt moot their argument. Not everybody updates their phone right away so any potential backdoor would give access to an unknown number of users.

Secondly, your claim that the backdoor would become obsolete with the next version of iOS is not supported by anything.

I'll let apple themselves explain why

Some would argue that building a backdoor for just one iPhone is a simple, clean-cut solution. But it ignores both the basics of digital security and the significance of what the government is demanding in this case.

In today’s digital world, the “key” to an encrypted system is a piece of information that unlocks the data, and it is only as secure as the protections around it. Once the information is known, or a way to bypass the code is revealed, the encryption can be defeated by anyone with that knowledge.

The government suggests this tool could only be used once, on one phone. But that’s simply not true. Once created, the technique could be used over and over again, on any number of devices. In the physical world, it would be the equivalent of a master key, capable of opening hundreds of millions of locks — from restaurants and banks to stores and homes. No reasonable person would find that acceptable.

The government is asking Apple to hack our own users and undermine decades of security advancements that protect our customers — including tens of millions of American citizens — from sophisticated hackers and cybercriminals. The same engineers who built strong encryption into the iPhone to protect our users would, ironically, be ordered to weaken those protections and make our users less safe.

[Seatard]

This revelation kinda defeats the "precedence" argument because the argument isn't centered around the method or firmware as to which Apple hacked but the fact that Apple hacked a phone to get its information in the first place by order of the government

In the past Apple was ordered to hand over information they had, i.e. information stored on their servers from the older versions of iOS that could unlock the phones.

Now, Apple is being ordered to create and hand over something that does not currently exist. The new version of iOS does not save unlocking information anywhere but on the phone. They are being compelled to make a new tool that can remotely unlock all iPhones.

[showtime2389]

tim cook knows a lot about backdoors

[HubertL]

In the past Apple was ordered to hand over information they had, i.e. information stored on their servers from the older versions of iOS that could unlock the phones.

Now, Apple is being ordered to create and hand over something that does not currently exist. The new version of iOS does not save unlocking information anywhere but on the phone. They are being compelled to make a new tool that can remotely unlock all iPhones.

thanks for the aware. if that is true, that's a different story

[NYPat]

tim cook knows a lot about backdoors

ayyyyy

[jtaylor2010]

Well it brings up the interesting point of....can a company really be considered responsible if they create a product which could contain information no one would have access to? Should it be mandatory for companies to create ways to extract information for instances just like this?

And just lulz at anyone who thinks Apple is acting as some crusader in the fight for privacy. Apple has done more to erode personal privacy than any other entity of the last 10 years, even more than the U.S govt.

[bking10]

Well it brings up the interesting point of....can a company really be considered responsible if they create a product which could contain information no one would have access to? Should it be mandatory for companies to create ways to extract information for instances just like this?

And just lulz at anyone who thinks Apple is acting as some crusader in the fight for privacy. Apple has done more to erode personal privacy than any other entity of the last 10 years, even more than the U.S govt.

Should the US govt be given a room key that unlocks every room in every hotel simply because they think one room in one hotel has a criminal in it? sometimes the freedom of the populace trumps the needs of law enforcement.

[USBrah]

Can someone tell me why don't the FBI visit the NSA HQ instead?

[Qong]

Yes, and considering they've unlocked iPhones before, I would say their argument is falling apart a bit. Would need to know the specifics of previously unlocked phones though, and how they compare to the current situation.

In my opinion, issues of national security backed with court orders, rise to the level of taking action if possible.

That's my view too. When it comes to national security action should be taken if at all possible. Who knows what sort of valuable information could be on that phone, perhaps even information about other cells that are already in our country planning an attack.

These people were confirmed, 100% terrorists and as a result of that I don't think that they should be protected by our laws and constitution. I could care less if a terrorist is sent to Guantanamo Bay and is waterboarded 24 hours a day. They don't have any protections that other Americans have in my view.

What's at issue for me is the rights of Apple. I certainly agree that they shouldn't be forced to ruin their security or products. If that is actually the case and is the end result of fulfilling the request I'm unsure. I don't know enough about the topic.

No it doesnt moot their argument. Not everybody updates their phone right away so any potential backdoor would give access to an unknown number of users.

Secondly, your claim that the backdoor would become obsolete with the next version of iOS is not supported by anything.

I'll let apple themselves explain why

Interesting read on Apple's view. What you said about people not updating their phones also makes sense of course. To me it seems that Apple could easily patch the hole once they created it but as you said, that would leave the people who are using that same old software vulnerable. Honestly I don't see that as being much different from any other software that gets hacked and subsequently patched. Also there is tons of software out there that stops receiving updates and becomes more vulnerable as a result of that. It's normal for companies, including Apple I believe, to stop supporting and updating their older software.

I think the most fair thing is to ultimately leave it up to Apple. They shouldn't be forced into ruining the security of their products and possibly losing customers and harming their company. Is it the right thing to do? Probably. But they shouldn't be forced to do it.

[buildingbrah]

Businesses only care about making money, so the question is what does Apple have to gain by this. It seems Apple must have calculated that the free media attention for refusing plus the brownie points they win with anti-government people is well worth refusing. lol at people thinking this shows some great integrity and principles in Apples values. They just want money.

[jtaylor2010]

Should the US govt be given a room key that unlocks every room in every hotel simply because they think one room in one hotel has a criminal in it? sometimes the freedom of the populace trumps the needs of law enforcement.

They wouldn't have to give the key to the govt. would they? Couldn't they just unlock it for them?


Is it responsible for a hotel to rent rooms out to anyone who wants one while the hotel itself doesn't have a key to the rooms?

[p100]

It depends on the type of unlocking.

I doubt those previous 70 unlockings required Apple to make new software that gives a backdoor into the phone and makes the encryption useless.

This is the type of media we get when idiots with no technical knowledge try to give their opinion. (I do not have computer technical knowledge)

[ODBM]

Regardless of my position on this whole issue, it can't be ignored that this tidbit of information puts Trump in a much better position after having criticized Apple last night. The man is always one step ahead.

[crupiea]

So we are to believe that the nsa . fbi. cia, with all of their know how, cant hack into an iphone?

if that true then why dont they use that same encryption at the pentagon?

[jro9999]

Well it brings up the interesting point of....can a company really be considered responsible if they create a product which could contain information no one would have access to? Should it be mandatory for companies to create ways to extract information for instances just like this?

Why would apple be responsible for their device that let's people do whatever they want with it?

That's like blaming Craigslist for meeting a hooker from the back pages and you wind up getting a nasty rash and a bad case of crabs

It's up to the user. Apple should bear no responsibility whatsoever for whatever messages or information somebody stores on their phone.