For those who think Apple should be forced to break the security on their phone (and I understand the logic behind this - I don't think this is an obvious issue at all), I am wondering something.
Apple is a global company. If the US Government can legally force them to break the security on the iPhone (and lets assume they do so and have done so after proper due process), then what justification would Apple have for refusing to do the same when China asks them to do so, or Russia, or Saudi Arabia?
If a sovereign state actor has the power to demand that a business take this action, are you ok with EVERY sovereign having that same power to compel? Or are there only some of them that should have that power, and how should Apple decide which?
Aren't Apple phones made in China already?
Apple isn't incorporated in Russia, China or Saudi Arabia.
Apples grow on trees.
It's Eve's fault for tempting Adam with the damn thing. We never would have fallen into a state of sin otherwise.
Quote from: Razgovory on March 01, 2016, 11:53:41 AM
Apple isn't incorporated in Russia, China or Saudi Arabia.
I suspect they have subsidiaries that are incorporated in those locations. If not, at least registered offices.
Anyway, this is a false equivalency argument. If you want to allow one government to be able to investigate and prosecute murder in one country it doesn't mean you are automatically in favor of investigation and prosecution of apostasy in another.
Quote from: Razgovory on March 01, 2016, 01:14:14 PM
Anyway, this is a false equivalency argument. If you want to allow one government to be able to investigate and prosecute murder in one country it doesn't mean you are automatically in favor of investigation and prosecution of apostasy in another.
But it was presented in terms of equivalency. Certainly terrorism exists in Russia, Saudi Arabia, and China--probably all three have worse issues than the US. So if the US can compel Apple to break its security for a phone with possible terrorist information on it, should the previously mentioned countries be able to do so as well?
If so, where are the limiting factors, both in the US and abroad?
Each country already has that power now. Every country in the world could, if they wanted to, say to whoever is responsible for marketing iPhones "give us the right to read the info on your phones, or you cannot do business here". There is nothing, save Apple's willingness to pull out of the market in that country, that Apple could do about it.
Whether any country *should* do that is, of course, a whole 'nother story.
Quote from: Malthus on March 01, 2016, 01:44:34 PM
Each country already has that power now. Every country in the world could, if they wanted to, say to whoever is responsible for marketing iPhones "give us the right to read the info on your phones, or you cannot do business here". There is nothing, save Apple's willingness to pull out of the market in that country, that Apple could do about it.
Whether any country *should* do that is, of course, a whole 'nother story.
Yes, exactly. The actions of the US government are utterly unrelated to the actions of another. The US
not pursuing the policy forcing Apple to break the security on their phone has no power to stop Saudi Arabia, Russia, or China from forcing Apple to break the security on their phone.
As an argument, that dog don't hunt. Sorry, Berkut.
Quote from: Malthus on March 01, 2016, 01:44:34 PM
Each country already has that power now. Every country in the world could, if they wanted to, say to whoever is responsible for marketing iPhones "give us the right to read the info on your phones, or you cannot do business here". There is nothing, save Apple's willingness to pull out of the market in that country, that Apple could do about it.
Whether any country *should* do that is, of course, a whole 'nother story.
Indeed - what I am trying to get at is the views of the individuals who support the US government having the power to compel such from Apple, and if they have really thought through the implications of that position.
I think Apple has kind of an interesting position - it is an occasion where the desire of a mega-corporation actually aligns with the desires of the consumers. Yet some people actually support the government, and in the US, the government is influenced by the people. That means that for me, I want people to call their congressperson and say "Hey, get off Apple's case!". To some extent that is happening, and to some extent people are supporting the FBI.
That is all fine - that is how democracy works. Or is supposed to work.
My issue though is that you cannot create a general rule that says that Apple should be compelled to follow the demands of OUR government, but should be free to ignore the demands of other governments. The reality is that Apple does in fact have to follow the demands of all governments, hence we should be very careful about what we demand that they do - if they are going to do it for the US, then how can we argue that they should not do it for other countries as well?
I think we all recognize that if a business wants to do business, they are going to have to follow the rules of the places they do business in - as the most powerful and valuable business environment for a company like Apple, we need to be careful about what we demand of them.
If Saudi Arabia goes to Apple today and demands that they unlock some phone Apple can and will tell them "No, we don't do that for anyone" and SA isn't going to kick them out (probably). And if SA does, then Apple will shrug and live with it, because it would be more damaging to their brand to give in than the value of that market.
If SA goes to Apple a year from now and says "Hey, clearly you have conceded that sovereign nations can demand that you create this hack, we are sovereign, so do it for us" then Apple doesn't have nearly as strong a position to stand on, and it would not be nearly as damaging to them - rather the damage has already been done, so why risk losing the market for a lost cause?
Quote from: grumbler on March 01, 2016, 01:54:38 PM
Quote from: Malthus on March 01, 2016, 01:44:34 PM
Each country already has that power now. Every country in the world could, if they wanted to, say to whoever is responsible for marketing iPhones "give us the right to read the info on your phones, or you cannot do business here". There is nothing, save Apple's willingness to pull out of the market in that country, that Apple could do about it.
Whether any country *should* do that is, of course, a whole 'nother story.
Yes, exactly. The actions of the US government are utterly unrelated to the actions of another. The US not pursuing the policy forcing Apple to break the security on their phone has no power to stop Saudi Arabia, Russia, or China from forcing Apple to break the security on their phone.
As an argument, that dog don't hunt. Sorry, Berkut.
I think it affects the ability of Apple to resist such demands from other countries.
Basically, Apple has to make a choice at that point - either give up the value of that market, or give in to the demands.
Absent this action from the US (and the US clearly has the power to compel Apple since they cannot give up this market), it would harm Apple to give in to such demands because it would damage their brand globally.
If the US forces them to do this to begin with, it becomes much harder for them to justify resisting others - the damage has already been done.
Berkut, i don't understand the argument. You say " if they are going to do it for the US, then how can we argue that they should not do it for other countries as well?" Why is that a question? Why would someone have to have consistent policies on what he or she would allow government to do without considering which government is being referred to?
We can argue different policies in different circumstances all the time, and we should.
I see it as an issue of relative bargaining power. Countries with lots of it will always be in a better position to force Apple's hand. I don't think countries will be able to rely on some notion of basic fairness between nations (as in 'you did it for them, why not for us?'). The answer, though no doubt put more diplomatically, is likely to be "they are the freaking US, and you are Upper Slobovia. Do the math."
Because the power here is whether or not Apple should bow to a demand that they actually help a government break the security on their product. If in fact a government has that power, then surely that is a power derived from the nature of sovereign governments, rather than the specifics of particular governments.
Are we saying that Apple then has the right to decide which governments they will listen to and which they will not? If so, then aren't we saying that they have the right to refuse the US government?
I don't understand the argument that Apple does NOT have the right to say "No" to the FBI, but does have the right to say "No" to the SVR. Either they have the right to make that evaluation themselves, based on the circumstances (in which case we should support them saying "no" to the FBI) or they do not have that right (in which case we should demand that they should be compelled by the FBI and their views on the matter are not relevant, because they are not the determining body, it is the courts).
The question isn't different policies in different circumstances, the question is what are the range of powers that exist absent the specific circumstances.
Quote from: Berkut on March 01, 2016, 01:59:16 PM
I think it affects the ability of Apple to resist such demands from other countries.
I disagree. i don't think that Apple has ever had the power to say to the government of the PRC "the US government doesn't require me to do that, so you cannot require it, either."
QuoteBasically, Apple has to make a choice at that point - either give up the value of that market, or give in to the demands.
Absent this action from the US (and the US clearly has the power to compel Apple since they cannot give up this market), it would harm Apple to give in to such demands because it would damage their brand globally.
If the US forces them to do this to begin with, it becomes much harder for them to justify resisting others - the damage has already been done.
I think that "the damage to the Apple brand globally" will be near-nil. Apple (and others) have cooperated with court search warrants for decades and Apple grew all of that time, global brand undamaged. Apple (and others) have provided technical assistance required by search warrants for decades and Apple grew all of that time, global brand undamaged. I suspect that complying this time will not damage their brand any more than it has the last 100 or 200 times.
Now, you can make the argument that Apple would have to expend too much effort cracking the phone software to make that technical assistance a "reasonable burden," but there seems actually nothing new in this case beyond the scope of the technical challenge.
Quote from: Berkut on March 01, 2016, 02:09:24 PM
Because the power here is whether or not Apple should bow to a demand that they actually help a government break the security on their product. If in fact a government has that power, then surely that is a power derived from the nature of sovereign governments, rather than the specifics of particular governments.
Are we saying that Apple then has the right to decide which governments they will listen to and which they will not? If so, then aren't we saying that they have the right to refuse the US government?
I don't understand the argument that Apple does NOT have the right to say "No" to the FBI, but does have the right to say "No" to the SVR. Either they have the right to make that evaluation themselves, based on the circumstances (in which case we should support them saying "no" to the FBI) or they do not have that right (in which case we should demand that they should be compelled by the FBI and their views on the matter are not relevant, because they are not the determining body, it is the courts).
The question isn't different policies in different circumstances, the question is what are the range of powers that exist absent the specific circumstances.
Whether they have a right to say no or not depends on the law in the specific country.
Quote from: Malthus on March 01, 2016, 02:03:01 PM
I see it as an issue of relative bargaining power. Countries with lots of it will always be in a better position to force Apple's hand. I don't think countries will be able to rely on some notion of basic fairness between nations (as in 'you did it for them, why not for us?'). The answer, though no doubt put more diplomatically, is likely to be "they are the freaking US, and you are Upper Slobovia. Do the math."
Yeah. Realistically, there are two major entities in the world that have a lot of weight to throw around: the US and the EU. Maybe you could also lump Japan in there. But otherwise, if a country tries to push around a US company like Apple, it is likely to have two problems:
-the people will be quite upset if Apple pulls out and the government will look bad (every other country gets apple products, why are we the asses that ran them out of the country?)
-the US trade representatives will put a ton of pressure on the country to back down, start laying out a case of protectionism and possible human rights infractions, etc.
For all I know Apple maybe already lets some governments have back doors of various kinds. I don't assume privacy when I use Apple products.
No, there is something new, very specifically new in fact from a technology standpoint.
Apple set out to create a encryption scheme that even they could not really break, and they sold that very intentionally.
This is not about realizing that a given product CAN be hacked by the government, because nothing is really secure. This is about Apple being forced to actively break their own technology which they designed so that they could not reasonably do exactly what they are being asked to do.
Previously, everyone knew that there was a key, and that Apple had that key, and that the government could get the key as needed. Indeed, the technology was such that it was necessary to create the key in order to create the technology to begin with...
This product is one where Apple very specifically created a device for which there is no key, and the FBI is demanding that Apple create one where it never existed before at all. That is different.
Quote from: Berkut on March 01, 2016, 02:09:24 PM
Because the power here is whether or not Apple should bow to a demand that they actually help a government break the security on their product. If in fact a government has that power, then surely that is a power derived from the nature of sovereign governments, rather than the specifics of particular governments.
Are we saying that Apple then has the right to decide which governments they will listen to and which they will not? If so, then aren't we saying that they have the right to refuse the US government?
I don't understand the argument that Apple does NOT have the right to say "No" to the FBI, but does have the right to say "No" to the SVR. Either they have the right to make that evaluation themselves, based on the circumstances (in which case we should support them saying "no" to the FBI) or they do not have that right (in which case we should demand that they should be compelled by the FBI and their views on the matter are not relevant, because they are not the determining body, it is the courts).
The question isn't different policies in different circumstances, the question is what are the range of powers that exist absent the specific circumstances.
It isn't a question of rights. A sovereign government has the power, be it the US or Upper Slobovia (absent a treaty it has signed to the contrary effect, or some purely internal constitutional limitation) .
The question is one of consequences. Should Upper Slobovia make demands that Apple finds unreasonable, even though it has every "right" to do so, Apple always has the option to cease doing business there - meaning no more iPhones, no more local contracts for Apple suppliers, etc. Also meaning Apple starts putting political pressure on Upper Slobovia via friendly countries, the press, etc.
Who will blink? Upper Slobovia presumably doesn't want to become an iPhone-free zone and international pariah/laughingstock, and neither does Apple want to lose the market.
Quote from: grumbler on March 01, 2016, 02:11:14 PM
Now, you can make the argument that Apple would have to expend too much effort cracking the phone software to make that technical assistance a "reasonable burden," but there seems actually nothing new in this case beyond the scope of the technical challenge.
It requires them to create a set of code that didn't exist before. That is something new as the prior precedent involved things like pen registers that phone companies already had and used for similar purposes. It raises a question different from the one B is asking - namely whether the US govt actually has the legal authority to do this in the first place.
Quote from: alfred russel on March 01, 2016, 02:14:31 PM
Quote from: Malthus on March 01, 2016, 02:03:01 PM
I see it as an issue of relative bargaining power. Countries with lots of it will always be in a better position to force Apple's hand. I don't think countries will be able to rely on some notion of basic fairness between nations (as in 'you did it for them, why not for us?'). The answer, though no doubt put more diplomatically, is likely to be "they are the freaking US, and you are Upper Slobovia. Do the math."
Yeah. Realistically, there are two major entities in the world that have a lot of weight to throw around: the US and the EU. Maybe you could also lump Japan in there. But otherwise, if a country tries to push around a US company like Apple, it is likely to have two problems:
-the people will be quite upset if Apple pulls out and the government will look bad (every other country gets apple products, why are we the asses that ran them out of the country?)
The problem is that it is easy to imagine that governments can then use this against Apple. IE, if the US gets to demand that Apple violate their principles, then why is it fair that Apple doesn't help us against OUR terrorists?
It feeds right into the nationalism and xenophobia of countries like Russia and China, and you are right that the domestic pressure is the primary check on these governments making such demands now. Apple rolling over for the FBI will greatly undermine that check.
Quote
-the US trade representatives will put a ton of pressure on the country to back down, start laying out a case of protectionism and possible human rights infractions, etc.
[/quote
How in the world could they make any such claim if the US already opened the door to this? I would think it would be pretty hard to argue that some country doesn't have the same power as the US within their own borders.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on March 01, 2016, 02:19:04 PM
Quote from: grumbler on March 01, 2016, 02:11:14 PM
Now, you can make the argument that Apple would have to expend too much effort cracking the phone software to make that technical assistance a "reasonable burden," but there seems actually nothing new in this case beyond the scope of the technical challenge.
It requires them to create a set of code that didn't exist before. That is something new as the prior precedent involved things like pen registers that phone companies already had and used for similar purposes. It raises a question different from the one B is asking - namely whether the US govt actually has the legal authority to do this in the first place.
That's a purely internal matter, dealing with US law. Assume some country with a set of laws and constitution that was totally silent on the matter passed a law "no devices may be sold with unbroken encryption, and if any have been sold, the manufacturer must break the encryption when required by warrant; ps. this law has retroactive effect".
Quote from: Malthus on March 01, 2016, 02:18:21 PM
Quote from: Berkut on March 01, 2016, 02:09:24 PM
Because the power here is whether or not Apple should bow to a demand that they actually help a government break the security on their product. If in fact a government has that power, then surely that is a power derived from the nature of sovereign governments, rather than the specifics of particular governments.
Are we saying that Apple then has the right to decide which governments they will listen to and which they will not? If so, then aren't we saying that they have the right to refuse the US government?
I don't understand the argument that Apple does NOT have the right to say "No" to the FBI, but does have the right to say "No" to the SVR. Either they have the right to make that evaluation themselves, based on the circumstances (in which case we should support them saying "no" to the FBI) or they do not have that right (in which case we should demand that they should be compelled by the FBI and their views on the matter are not relevant, because they are not the determining body, it is the courts).
The question isn't different policies in different circumstances, the question is what are the range of powers that exist absent the specific circumstances.
It isn't a question of rights. A sovereign government has the power, be it the US or Upper Slobovia (absent a treaty it has signed to the contrary effect, or some purely internal constitutional limitation) .
The question is one of consequences. Should Upper Slobovia make demands that Apple finds unreasonable, even though it has every "right" to do so, Apple always has the option to cease doing business there - meaning no more iPhones, no more local contracts for Apple suppliers, etc. Also meaning Apple starts putting political pressure on Upper Slobovia via friendly countries, the press, etc.
Who will blink? Upper Slobovia presumably doesn't want to become an iPhone-free zone and international pariah/laughingstock, and neither does Apple want to lose the market.
But this is my point. Obviously Upper Slobovia has the *power* to compel Apple to comply or stop doing business.
The question though is whether the US should establish the precedent that said power should be exercised.
Right now, Apple has consistently said "Nope, sorry, cannot be done" and that has stuck...so far.
If the US compels Apple to change that, I don't see how Apple can turn around and say that the rules are different for Upper Slobovia than they are for the US - that the FBI can compel them to change their policy, but the SVR cannot.
This is all about politics at the end of the day, so perception matters. As long as *nobody* gets access to iPhones, then I think Apple can (and will) maintain their policy. Once the genie is out of the bottle, they cannot put it back in for everyone but the US, or everyone but the FBI.
We will see the exact same thing in the US, writ small. If the FBI can compel, then so can the Rochester District Attorney.
Surely Apple complies with all applicable laws and regulations in all contries they do business in. Those aren't up to Apple, and rarely depend on US law.
Berkut, look at the US tax code. We require international banking institutions to report transactions entered into overseas with US citizens to the IRS. For example, a German bank paying interest on a deposit to a US citizen living in Germany (or issuing a mortgage) must report that to the IRS.
We are the only country insisting on such international reporting, and we don't worry about other countries making reciprocal demands, because we are the US and other countries are not. I actually think it sucks, but it is the way we work, and the rest of the world is cajoled into going along with it.
But in most cases, they don't go along with it - in most cases reciprocity rules the relationships.
Yes, the US is the most powerful, and we get away with using that at times to make the rules different for us, but in most cases, that is not how it ends up. In most cases, what is good for the US goose is good for the EU gander.
I would not assume that any rules we make about compelling Apple will successfully be limited to just Apple.
And there are implications beyond just Apple as well.
You know if Apple gets forced to do this, Samsung won't bother trying to come out with a version of their devices that are truly secure in a similar fashion, for example. Why bother?
Quote from: Berkut on March 01, 2016, 02:40:47 PM
But in most cases, they don't go along with it - in most cases reciprocity rules the relationships.
Yes, the US is the most powerful, and we get away with using that at times to make the rules different for us, but in most cases, that is not how it ends up. In most cases, what is good for the US goose is good for the EU gander.
In terms of US vs. EU, I agree there is something like reciprocity and equal term negotiation. Of course the EU takes digital privacy much more seriously than we do, so it is something of a red herring.
In terms of the US vs. Upper Slobovia, I don't agree unless we are talking about something covered by a trade treaty or with third party mediation.
So you are arguing that Apple should say yes to the US, but no to others?
In essence, you are arguing that Apple has the power to evaluate the specifics of a demand, and decide themselves whether or not they should meet it or not?
Quote from: Berkut on March 01, 2016, 02:50:37 PM
So you are arguing that Apple should say yes to the US, but no to others?
In essence, you are arguing that Apple has the power to evaluate the specifics of a demand, and decide themselves whether or not they should meet it or not?
In the US, isn't that what the preliminary court ruling has effectively said? No one has prohibited them from complying with the request, but they aren't being legally compelled to either (at this stage at least).
I think they are being legally compelled - they have appealed that compulsion, of course.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on March 01, 2016, 02:19:04 PM
It requires them to create a set of code that didn't exist before. That is something new as the prior precedent involved things like pen registers that phone companies already had and used for similar purposes. It raises a question different from the one B is asking - namely whether the US govt actually has the legal authority to do this in the first place.
The US government can, at least in law-enforcement cases, require corporations to render them technical assistance to obtain information in pursuit of search warrants, so long as such assistance is reasonable and necessary. I don't see how Apple's use of a sales gimmick changes that in any way, other than possibly making the technical assistance necessary but unreasonable.
I don't think Berkut's question is naive or silly - it is simply a question of ethics/principles. The underlying assumption is pretty Kantian - according to one of two Kant's imperatives, one should always act according to a rule one would like to become a universal law.
Quote from: Martinus on March 01, 2016, 04:35:19 PM
I don't think Berkut's question is naive or silly - it is simply a question of ethics/principles. The underlying assumption is pretty Kantian - according to one of two Kant's imperatives, one should always act according to a rule one would like to become a universal law.
It seems weird to me not to subscribe to the idea that different sovereign countries should have different laws on this matter if they feel like it.
Quote from: The Brain on March 01, 2016, 04:42:39 PM
Quote from: Martinus on March 01, 2016, 04:35:19 PM
I don't think Berkut's question is naive or silly - it is simply a question of ethics/principles. The underlying assumption is pretty Kantian - according to one of two Kant's imperatives, one should always act according to a rule one would like to become a universal law.
It seems weird to me not to subscribe to the idea that different sovereign countries should have different laws on this matter if they feel like it.
It seems weird to me that you would conflate ethical behavior with legal behavior, especially in the context of comparative jurisprudence.
Quote from: Martinus on March 01, 2016, 04:54:26 PM
Quote from: The Brain on March 01, 2016, 04:42:39 PM
Quote from: Martinus on March 01, 2016, 04:35:19 PM
I don't think Berkut's question is naive or silly - it is simply a question of ethics/principles. The underlying assumption is pretty Kantian - according to one of two Kant's imperatives, one should always act according to a rule one would like to become a universal law.
It seems weird to me not to subscribe to the idea that different sovereign countries should have different laws on this matter if they feel like it.
It seems weird to me that you would conflate ethical behavior with legal behavior, especially in the context of comparative jurisprudence.
From the OP:
QuoteIf a sovereign state actor has the power to demand that a business take this action, are you ok with EVERY sovereign having that same power to compel? Or are there only some of them that should have that power, and how should Apple decide which?
Like any company Apple doesn't have to be philosophical on this matter. They just have to comply with legal requirements, the law is not their decision. Laws don't have to make sense or not be incredibly harmful. And that different countries can have different laws is heavily hinted at in the word "sovereign".
Quote from: grumbler on March 01, 2016, 04:08:31 PM
The US government can, at least in law-enforcement cases, require corporations to render them technical assistance to obtain information in pursuit of search warrants, so long as such assistance is reasonable and necessary.
Let's unpack that.
The Court, in NY Telephone, held that the All Writs Act could allow an order to a third party to provide "meager assistance" to a criminal investigation where the company's facilities were being used to further a criminal enterprise. The assistance in that case consisted of installing a pen register - a routine operation commonly carried out by the phone company for its own purposes in other contexts. All other cases I am aware of also involved the application of existing resources or capabilities in a routine manner. I am aware of no cases where a company was compelled to create or develop capabilities or resources that previously did not previously exist.
The All Writs Act was a codification of a grab bag of common law writs. The AWA does not create any new powers or authority, it only clarifies that courts can use any legally recognized writ in aid of its already existing jurisdiction. For example, a court can issue orders requiring compliance with prior orders on threat of sanction. But it cannot impose new relief. Accordingly,
NY Telephone was controversial because as the 4 dissenting justices pointed out, commandeering the assistance of the phone company, even if purely ministerial, was of a different nature than the underlying order approving the warrant to intercept. In a sense this history is irrelevant, because however slim the majority, the case did go for the government. But it matters to the extent the government now contemplates a significant expansion of court authority under the All Writs Act. An already questionable decision made at the time (IMO) on the basis of practical expediency is now being sent down the slippery slope.
In short, this looks an example of hard cases making bad law. There are some compelling circumstances, but what is being urged is novel and would stretch the statutory authorization well past the textual and contextual breaking point. The FBI assures us this is a one off, unusual circumstance, but we have a system of precedential common law. There is no such thing as a one off.
QuoteI don't see how Apple's use of a sales gimmick changes that in any way, other than possibly making the technical assistance necessary but unreasonable.
Not sure what the "sales gimmick" here is, but Apple put in an affidavit saying that compliance would involve a team of 6-10 employees working 2-4 works to develop and deploy the new code. Perhaps this is an exaggeration but even taking it at discounted face value, it is an effort orders of magnitude different from NY Telephone.
So you see the principle argument against as the time and money required?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 01, 2016, 05:13:44 PM
So you see the principle argument against as the time and money required?
No the argument against is that the US is a government of limited powers and this ain't one of them.
I think as a matter of pure legal interpretation,
NY Telephone was wrongly decided. But it did make sense pragmatically. The government had the power to install the pen registers. The phone company could do it far more effectively and efficiently. It seemed silly to say the government has the power to intercept but not to ask the phone company to lift its pinky finger. The argument against was slippery slope and sure enough Justice Stevens thundered about King George III. But the argument against that was that there was a limiting principle - namely "meager" assistance involving conduct of typical or routine operations using existing resources.
Once you take the step of saying the rule can be extended to creating something new, in a manner that is opposite from the company's usual procedure, that limiting principle is blown up. What's the new one? If it is time and money, how is that weighed and decided - e.g. could the government take over the entire Apple enterprise for a couple hours? A day? A week? A month? If it isn't time and money, what is it?
Quote from: Martinus on March 01, 2016, 04:35:19 PM
I don't think Berkut's question is naive or silly - it is simply a question of ethics/principles. The underlying assumption is pretty Kantian - according to one of two Kant's imperatives, one should always act according to a rule one would like to become a universal law.
That's fine on a philosophical level, but on a practical level, it's kind of a moot point. I wouldn't mind whatever the courts wind up saying is the US law in this case being the law worldwide, IF all other countries had the same legal systems and protections for human rights we have. But they don't.
Quote from: Berkut
We will see the exact same thing in the US, writ small. If the FBI can compel, then so can the Rochester District Attorney.
Which is entirely appropriate, IMO. I don't see the terrorist angle as being relevant--the question is (or should be) to what extent the authorities can compel someone to assist in any criminal investigation. If allowing the FBI to compel Apple's cooperation in this particular case hurts Apple's business, too fucking bad--that shouldn't be something the court should consider IMO.
With all due respect Joan, everything after the no seems to be about yes.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on March 01, 2016, 05:31:17 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 01, 2016, 05:13:44 PM
So you see the principle argument against as the time and money required?
No the argument against is that the US is a government of limited powers and this ain't one of them.
I think as a matter of pure legal interpretation, NY Telephone was wrongly decided. But it did make sense pragmatically. The government had the power to install the pen registers. The phone company could do it far more effectively and efficiently. It seemed silly to say the government has the power to intercept but not to ask the phone company to lift its pinky finger. The argument against was slippery slope and sure enough Justice Stevens thundered about King George III. But the argument against that was that there was a limiting principle - namely "meager" assistance involving conduct of typical or routine operations using existing resources.
Once you take the step of saying the rule can be extended to creating something new, in a manner that is opposite from the company's usual procedure, that limiting principle is blown up. What's the new one? If it is time and money, how is that weighed and decided - e.g. could the government take over the entire Apple enterprise for a couple hours? A day? A week? A month? If it isn't time and money, what is it?
I agree, but as I said in the other thread, primarily on the basis that being compelled to assist is a violation of the 13th Amendment. I don't expect any court to actually endorse my view. That seems to be fairly similar to what you are saying, but you're not putting it in such stark terms.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 01, 2016, 05:33:31 PM
With all due respect Joan, everything after the no seems to be about yes.
Hmm let me retry.
The argument against is the government doesn't have the power, period.
But in 1977 the Supreme Court ruled the government could nonetheless exercise the power, where the impact on the company was "meager"
Given that ruling the boundaries of "meager" have to be carefully policed. Not because of financial impact on corporate America. But because we are already in constitutionally dubious territory and thus the exceptional authority needs to be contained.
Quote from: dps on March 01, 2016, 05:42:05 PM
I agree, but as I said in the other thread, primarily on the basis that being compelled to assist is a violation of the 13th Amendment. I don't expect any court to actually endorse my view. That seems to be fairly similar to what you are saying, but you're not putting it in such stark terms.
There are separate constitutional arguments even if All Writs Act applied. But those don't even need to come into play if the statutory authority doesn't exist in the first place.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on March 01, 2016, 05:45:47 PM
Quote from: dps on March 01, 2016, 05:42:05 PM
I agree, but as I said in the other thread, primarily on the basis that being compelled to assist is a violation of the 13th Amendment. I don't expect any court to actually endorse my view. That seems to be fairly similar to what you are saying, but you're not putting it in such stark terms.
There are separate constitutional arguments even if All Writs Act applied. But those don't even need to come into play if the statutory authority doesn't exist in the first place.
Good point.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on March 01, 2016, 05:42:52 PM
Hmm let me retry.
The argument against is the government doesn't have the power, period.
But in 1977 the Supreme Court ruled the government could nonetheless exercise the power, where the impact on the company was "meager"
Given that ruling the boundaries of "meager" have to be carefully policed. Not because of financial impact on corporate America. But because we are already in constitutionally dubious territory and thus the exceptional authority needs to be contained.
Right. Meager means insignificant time and resources, no?
BTW, what exactly is a pen register? I'm watching The Wire and it always comes up.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 01, 2016, 05:51:37 PM
Meager means insignificant time and resources, no?
Yes. Court's language, court's standard. Not mine.
QuoteBTW, what exactly is a pen register? I'm watching The Wire and it always comes up.
It's a doodad that can be installed on a phone line that records the numbers dialed. In the old days by monitoring the electrical impulses from the rotary dial.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on March 01, 2016, 06:06:35 PM
Yes. Court's language, court's standard. Not mine.
Miscommunication. To clarify, my original question meant the main argument against Apple complying with the writ is time and resources.
Berkut's argument in OP is a a rather simple one, I don't understand why so many here seem to skip past it. Yes, other governments technically have the power to compel Apple to hack their own phones. But Apple, being a huge corporation, has some real power as well, though not codified, which allows them to put up resistance to governments and make them weigh the pros and cons of exercising their power.
Apple will be better able to resist governments if they have an unbroken principle to rely on. If they say yes to US but no to Russia, wouldn't it make it that much easier for Putin to say "Apple is obviously a tool of US imperialism, their resistance is motivated by their allegiance to their master rather than their principles".
How hard is it for him to say that right now, and what changes when he does?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 01, 2016, 08:11:30 PM
How hard is it for him to say that right now, and what changes when he does?
Legitimacy of said statement. Maybe Russia is a bad example, it can create whatever reality it needs anyway, but still.
Quote from: DGuller on March 01, 2016, 08:06:14 PM
Berkut's argument in OP is a a rather simple one, I don't understand why so many here seem to skip past it. Yes, other governments technically have the power to compel Apple to hack their own phones. But Apple, being a huge corporation, has some real power as well, though not codified, which allows them to put up resistance to governments and make them weigh the pros and cons of exercising their power.
Apple will be better able to resist governments if they have an unbroken principle to rely on. If they say yes to US but no to Russia, wouldn't it make it that much easier for Putin to say "Apple is obviously a tool of US imperialism, their resistance is motivated by their allegiance to their master rather than their principles".
Apple isn't saying "yes," it is (potentially) saying "if I must." It would be absolutely improper for Apple to volunteer to turn over the data from any iPhone the government wanted data from, so them saying "yes" is neither prudent from a business sense nor ethical.
Russia wouldn't find it easier or harder to make Apple say "if I must" in the event the US government makes them say "if I must." I'm not sure on what basis you are arguing that.
Quote from: DGuller on March 01, 2016, 08:12:39 PM
Legitimacy of said statement. Maybe Russia is a bad example, it can create whatever reality it needs anyway, but still.
Kind of a catch 22 for you, isn't it? Your hypothetical only works in places where legitimacy is not valued to begin with.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 01, 2016, 08:11:30 PM
How hard is it for him to say that right now, and what changes when he does?
it could forbid Apple to access the Russian market, for example, pushing its own OS based on Android, but free of Western imperialist's spying tool. Only good old russian spycraft involved.
So, Apple loses a market, an existing competitor fills the void, or their products get pirated and they can't do shit about it or something entirely new appears.
For the average russian it wouldn't change much, since there's nothing exclusive about intelligent phones, Android, Blackberry, iOS or other, we can all communicate together.
Apple could resist one country, but then China would join, then Saudi Arabia, then United Arab Emirates, than many other countries, and eventually, Apple would have the US market, with a "broken phone", meaning local customers would turn to other providers, and Apple would lose domestic market share + international market share and that would be very bad for shareholders.
He could do that now.
I doubt Russia or Saudi Arabia are vital markets. China may have more sway, google has given into the Chinese before. The big dog is of course the US, where their biggest market is and where they are based.
I still side with the FBI. I don't think lawful investigations should be halted because, "it's Apple!".
With the rise of distributed encryption this is a moot point. In a couple years nobody will be able to decrypt our personal shit.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 01, 2016, 11:16:13 PM
He could do that now.
Of course he could, but he won't, or he hasn't. We know that because he hasn't done so.
But the ability for Apple to resist that is based on there being a credible claim that they cannot really do so in a reasonable manner (which they very intentionally created), and they haven't done it for anyone else, so why would they do it for Russia?
Yes, they *can* just make those same demands anyway. But we all know that public opinion and public perception is what drives these issues in large part. So Apple being able to maintain a consistent standard of response is critical.
And that is my point. We all know that at the end of the day any sovereign nation can make any demand they like of Apple as a condition of Apple doing business in their country. But Apple can and will resist such demands when they are not reasonable. They are doing so right now, in their opinion.
My point is simply that you cannot argue that Apple has no right to resist such demands in this case, but does have the right to resist such demands in other cases. Either the decision is based on agencies outside of Apple, or not. If you argue that Apple has no decision to make here, that the US DOJ said to do it, so they should do it regardless of what they think, then that standard is based on some foundational idea that Apple has no say in these matters, and ought to just do as the sovereign demands.
That presumption is not unreasonable in the case of the US, where we accept that there is some presumed reasonable due process involved.
But you cannot argue that Apple gets to have a say in evaluation the reasonableness of the demand in some cases, but not in others. If you accept that Putin demanding that Apple crack the iPhone of some political target, and getting the Russian legal apparatus to go along with it and issue some ruling instructing Apple to do so, is something that Apple can and should refuse, then you have to accept that they can and should refuse the FBI making a similar demand.
They have the right to evaluate themselves, or they do not.
If they do, then you can argue that in this particular case their evaluation is wrong and they should re-think their position. But that is also arguing then that the FBI does not have the power to compel them, only to convince them.
If the FBI does in fact have the power to compel them, then you have to argue that the SVR does as well - that Apple is simply the recipient of such demands and has no right to evaluate their merits themselves.
The ironic thing is that that is exactly what Apple was trying to prevent. They tried to simply create a system where they cannot be asked to do that, because they don't have the ability to do that. We are seeing this with telecoms as well. Many of them do not save the content of text messages anymore at all. You cannot subpoena what doesn't exist.
To Minsky's point, this is clearly a unreasonable demand, since it is demanding that Apple do something they set out to make as absolutely difficult for themselves as possible, and by doing it will actively destroy the very security functionality they set out to create in the first place.
The demands of the sovereign don't have to be reasonable. Only legal.
Quote from: DGuller on March 01, 2016, 08:12:39 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 01, 2016, 08:11:30 PM
How hard is it for him to say that right now, and what changes when he does?
Legitimacy of said statement. Maybe Russia is a bad example, it can create whatever reality it needs anyway, but still.
I actually think that Russia's ability to create their own reality is rather limited in scope. They can sell the Russian people a lot, but only in a very narrow band, and convincing them that Apple is a tool of the Imperialist West might be possible...but to do so they would need to destroy the Apple brand anyway. And in that case, why would Apple care anymore?
In other words, if Putin decided that he wanted to force Apple to hack phones for him, he would FIRST have to destroy their brand. And if he did that, then Apple would probably say "Shrug, don't care - that market is largely dead to us already, so what leverage do you have anymore over us?"
If the US succeeds in forcing Apple to destroy their own security, then that opens the window for countries like China or Russia to go after Apple *without* the need to first destroy their brand as a product. They can simply argue that they are asking Apple to treat them the same way Apple treats the US government - as an entity that has the power and right to make the complete evaluation of when and under what circumstances the privacy of these devices can be violated, and Apple simply receives those valid requests and acts on them without any deliberative mechanism themselves.
And of course, it also sets that same precedent, both in the US and globally, for any and all other devices. There is no longer any "meager assistance" provision to these requests at all. If "meager" means you can demand the company to actively destroy the security they intentionally built to be unbreakable even by them, then any possible demand is now acceptable, and this will be used as precedent for future demands - I could even easily see it as precedent to file suit against a company like Apple for even creating a product that cannot be broken, in theory. If the State has the power to compel a company to break their own security on demand, then surely it has the power to compel a company to not create security that cannot be broken to begin with - which is the entire point of this charade by the FBI to begin with, I suspect.
I think they were waiting for just such a case.
Quote from: The Brain on March 02, 2016, 09:49:22 AM
The demands of the sovereign don't have to be reasonable. Only legal.
If that is the argument, then you are arguing that China or Russia or North Korea has the power to demand that Apple crack phones for them in order to more effectively commit human rights violations against political targets or their families, and Apple should cooperate in those actions.
I don't think they should, myself. I think they have an ethical and practical obligation to refuse such demands.
Quote from: Berkut on March 02, 2016, 09:52:11 AM
Quote from: The Brain on March 02, 2016, 09:49:22 AM
The demands of the sovereign don't have to be reasonable. Only legal.
If that is the argument, then you are arguing that China or Russia or North Korea has the power to demand that Apple crack phones for them in order to more effectively commit human rights violations against political targets or their families, and Apple should cooperate in those actions.
I don't think they should, myself. I think they have an ethical and practical obligation to refuse such demands.
It is normal for companies to comply with all applicable legislation in the countries where they operate. Indeed anything else would be weird. If a country has laws that a company doesn't want to comply with then the company shouldn't operate in that country. Companies treating the law as a smorgasbord seems unlikely to me to be a healthy way to go about things. If companies get to ignore some laws then why not other laws (rhetorical)?
I don't know much about the phone business, but in the nuclear business a company ignoring the law is deeply frowned upon. If I were an Apple stock owner I probably would caution against the company going outlaw.
Quote from: Berkut on March 02, 2016, 09:52:11 AM
If that is the argument, then you are arguing that China or Russia or North Korea has the power to demand that Apple crack phones for them in order to more effectively commit human rights violations against political targets or their families, and Apple should cooperate in those actions.
I don't think they should, myself. I think they have an ethical and practical obligation to refuse such demands.
You are, of course, free to believe whatever you want about anyone's obligations to follow the law. I question that this Apple case creates any new quandaries; the issue of the extent of government powers to compel citizens or corporations to undertake what amounts to 'free labor" has always been present. The PR aspect of Apples decision to market their phones as "so secure even we can't break into them" creates some irony here, but doesn't change the ethics of the situation.
The only new element here, insofar as I can tell, is whether the burden on Apple of actually carrying out the government's directive is unreasonable. If the court order is affirmed, and Apple does carry out the order, this phone will not be the first, nor the last, to get cracked as part of a law enforcement action.
I don't believe that US legal precedent carries any weight in China, North Korea, or Russia.
Quote from: The Brain on March 02, 2016, 10:00:04 AM
Quote from: Berkut on March 02, 2016, 09:52:11 AM
Quote from: The Brain on March 02, 2016, 09:49:22 AM
The demands of the sovereign don't have to be reasonable. Only legal.
If that is the argument, then you are arguing that China or Russia or North Korea has the power to demand that Apple crack phones for them in order to more effectively commit human rights violations against political targets or their families, and Apple should cooperate in those actions.
I don't think they should, myself. I think they have an ethical and practical obligation to refuse such demands.
It is normal for companies to comply with all applicable legislation in the countries where they operate.
Of course - that is largely why Apple went out of their way to create a security scheme they could not break. That way they could not be asked to do so. I don't think there are any countries where it is illegal to not do what cannot be done.
Quote
Indeed anything else would be weird. If a country has laws that a company doesn't want to comply with then the company shouldn't operate in that country. Companies treating the law as a smorgasbord seems unlikely to me to be a healthy way to go about things. If companies get to ignore some laws then why not other laws (rhetorical)?
We aren't talking about Apple ignoring the law, we are talking about how they go about complying with the law, and to what extremes a country can demand that they go in order to serve the interests of the investigative bodies in that country.
It is not black and white, not a matter of Apple simply refusing to abide by the law. It is a matter of them deciding what their obligations are under the relevant laws, and how they should go about meeting them when there are clear conflicts of interest between the powers of the state and the interests of their customers.
Quote
I don't know much about the phone business, but in the nuclear business a company ignoring the law is deeply frowned upon. If I were an Apple stock owner I probably would caution against the company going outlaw.
Nobody is talking about Apple going outlaw.
Quote from: Berkut on March 02, 2016, 10:09:27 AM
Quote from: The Brain on March 02, 2016, 10:00:04 AM
Quote from: Berkut on March 02, 2016, 09:52:11 AM
Quote from: The Brain on March 02, 2016, 09:49:22 AM
The demands of the sovereign don't have to be reasonable. Only legal.
If that is the argument, then you are arguing that China or Russia or North Korea has the power to demand that Apple crack phones for them in order to more effectively commit human rights violations against political targets or their families, and Apple should cooperate in those actions.
I don't think they should, myself. I think they have an ethical and practical obligation to refuse such demands.
It is normal for companies to comply with all applicable legislation in the countries where they operate.
Of course - that is largely why Apple went out of their way to create a security scheme they could not break. That way they could not be asked to do so. I don't think there are any countries where it is illegal to not do what cannot be done.
Quote
Indeed anything else would be weird. If a country has laws that a company doesn't want to comply with then the company shouldn't operate in that country. Companies treating the law as a smorgasbord seems unlikely to me to be a healthy way to go about things. If companies get to ignore some laws then why not other laws (rhetorical)?
We aren't talking about Apple ignoring the law, we are talking about how they go about complying with the law, and to what extremes a country can demand that they go in order to serve the interests of the investigative bodies in that country.
It is not black and white, not a matter of Apple simply refusing to abide by the law. It is a matter of them deciding what their obligations are under the relevant laws, and how they should go about meeting them when there are clear conflicts of interest between the powers of the state and the interests of their customers.
Quote
I don't know much about the phone business, but in the nuclear business a company ignoring the law is deeply frowned upon. If I were an Apple stock owner I probably would caution against the company going outlaw.
Nobody is talking about Apple going outlaw.
As I've said, laws don't have to make sense. There is nothing stopping a sovereign country from making laws that are impossible to comply with. In those cases it may be a good idea for the company to get out of that country.
When a company decides whether to operate in a certain country one of the factors typically considered is ethical aspects. There are several contries that all the companies I've worked for would never operate in, for ethical reasons. Apple's decision on how much they want to dance with the devil is its own.
I'm all for Apple (legally) fighting the power and (legally) sticking it to the man. Volkswagen took a huge hit when it became known that they thought the law was optional, if I were Apple I would make sure not to cross that line.
Quote from: Berkut on March 02, 2016, 09:40:49 AM
But you cannot argue that Apple gets to have a say in evaluation the reasonableness of the demand in some cases, but not in others. If you accept that Putin demanding that Apple crack the iPhone of some political target, and getting the Russian legal apparatus to go along with it and issue some ruling instructing Apple to do so, is something that Apple can and should refuse, then you have to accept that they can and should refuse the FBI making a similar demand.
Why can one not make that argument? Why should we have to accept that if the must comply with the FBI's demand, then they must comply with similar demands from Russia?
QuoteIf the FBI does in fact have the power to compel them, then you have to argue that the SVR does as well - that Apple is simply the recipient of such demands and has no right to evaluate their merits themselves.
But it's not about naked power; it's about legal authority. The presumption that there are certain legal safeguards in place in the US and other Western countries doesn't seem to me to mean that legal authority in those countries be looked at the same as in countries for which that presumption can't reasonably be made.
Quote from: dps on March 02, 2016, 04:54:59 PM
But it's not about naked power; it's about legal authority. The presumption that there are certain legal safeguards in place in the US and other Western countries doesn't seem to me to mean that legal authority in those countries be looked at the same as in countries for which that presumption can't reasonably be made.
Indeed. The irony of Berkut's position is that he is arguing that Apple should refuse to obey US law in order to give it the precedent it needs to defy the laws of Russia, China, and North Korea - precisely the countries that don't give a damn about precedents and international norms.
If he were arguing that Apple should refuse to obey distasteful US laws so that it would have the precedent to disobey distasteful Danish laws, he might have an argument. Denmark's politicians would consider the state of international opinion on the topic as part of their cost-benefit analyses.
Quote from: The Brain on March 02, 2016, 10:21:00 AM
Quote from: Berkut on March 02, 2016, 10:09:27 AM
Quote from: The Brain on March 02, 2016, 10:00:04 AM
Quote from: Berkut on March 02, 2016, 09:52:11 AM
Quote from: The Brain on March 02, 2016, 09:49:22 AM
The demands of the sovereign don't have to be reasonable. Only legal.
If that is the argument, then you are arguing that China or Russia or North Korea has the power to demand that Apple crack phones for them in order to more effectively commit human rights violations against political targets or their families, and Apple should cooperate in those actions.
I don't think they should, myself. I think they have an ethical and practical obligation to refuse such demands.
It is normal for companies to comply with all applicable legislation in the countries where they operate.
Of course - that is largely why Apple went out of their way to create a security scheme they could not break. That way they could not be asked to do so. I don't think there are any countries where it is illegal to not do what cannot be done.
Quote
Indeed anything else would be weird. If a country has laws that a company doesn't want to comply with then the company shouldn't operate in that country. Companies treating the law as a smorgasbord seems unlikely to me to be a healthy way to go about things. If companies get to ignore some laws then why not other laws (rhetorical)?
We aren't talking about Apple ignoring the law, we are talking about how they go about complying with the law, and to what extremes a country can demand that they go in order to serve the interests of the investigative bodies in that country.
It is not black and white, not a matter of Apple simply refusing to abide by the law. It is a matter of them deciding what their obligations are under the relevant laws, and how they should go about meeting them when there are clear conflicts of interest between the powers of the state and the interests of their customers.
Quote
I don't know much about the phone business, but in the nuclear business a company ignoring the law is deeply frowned upon. If I were an Apple stock owner I probably would caution against the company going outlaw.
Nobody is talking about Apple going outlaw.
As I've said, laws don't have to make sense. There is nothing stopping a sovereign country from making laws that are impossible to comply with. In those cases it may be a good idea for the company to get out of that country.
When a company decides whether to operate in a certain country one of the factors typically considered is ethical aspects. There are several contries that all the companies I've worked for would never operate in, for ethical reasons. Apple's decision on how much they want to dance with the devil is its own.
I'm all for Apple (legally) fighting the power and (legally) sticking it to the man. Volkswagen took a huge hit when it became known that they thought the law was optional, if I were Apple I would make sure not to cross that line.
That's right FTM
Quote from: dps on March 02, 2016, 04:54:59 PM
Quote from: Berkut on March 02, 2016, 09:40:49 AM
But you cannot argue that Apple gets to have a say in evaluation the reasonableness of the demand in some cases, but not in others. If you accept that Putin demanding that Apple crack the iPhone of some political target, and getting the Russian legal apparatus to go along with it and issue some ruling instructing Apple to do so, is something that Apple can and should refuse, then you have to accept that they can and should refuse the FBI making a similar demand.
Why can one not make that argument? Why should we have to accept that if the must comply with the FBI's demand, then they must comply with similar demands from Russia?
Because if you say that they can evaluate the demand from Russia, then you have to say they can evaluate the demand from the FBI as well. You are saying that they have the right to make a decision on their own about who they should or should not cooperate with - and if that is the case, then they have the right to refuse the FBI. Whether they should or not is another issue, of course.
Quote
QuoteIf the FBI does in fact have the power to compel them, then you have to argue that the SVR does as well - that Apple is simply the recipient of such demands and has no right to evaluate their merits themselves.
But it's not about naked power; it's about legal authority. The presumption that there are certain legal safeguards in place in the US and other Western countries doesn't seem to me to mean that legal authority in those countries be looked at the same as in countries for which that presumption can't reasonably be made.
True - but you are saying that Apple has the right to make that evaluation. They *must* have that right if you are arguing that they can exercise it in the case of countries without adequate legal safeguards - the very term itself implies an evaluation being done by Apple.
If so, they have the right to make that evaluation in regards to the FBI as well, and potentially decide that they should not cooperate.
Quote from: grumbler
Indeed. The irony of Berkut's position is that he is arguing that Apple should refuse to obey US law in order to give it the precedent it needs to defy the laws of Russia, China, and North Korea - precisely the countries that don't give a damn about precedents and international norms.
Not exactly.
I am not saying that they should defy US law, I am saying that US citizens should support putting pressure on the US judicial system, or the US legislature if needed, to make it unnecessary for Apple to defy US law, because the cost will be too high. At the end of the day, I don't think Apple defying US law is even an option. If they exhaust their legal recourse, and the end decision of the US judicial system is that they must comply, I don't think there is any doubt that they will do so.
And the reason I am giving for this is that if the US forces Apple to break their own security, other countries will have much greater leverage to demand that Apple do the same, for possibly much worse reasons, and further, that it will weaken Apple's own reasons to resist such efforts.
Quote
If he were arguing that Apple should refuse to obey distasteful US laws so that it would have the precedent to disobey distasteful Danish laws, he might have an argument. Denmark's politicians would consider the state of international opinion on the topic as part of their cost-benefit analyses.
Even Russia and China have to consider that in their cost-benefit analysis as well.
As does Apple.
Quote from: Berkut on March 02, 2016, 10:21:35 PM
Because if you say that they can evaluate the demand from Russia, then you have to say they can evaluate the demand from the FBI as well. You are saying that they have the right to make a decision on their own about who they should or should not cooperate with - and if that is the case, then they have the right to refuse the FBI. Whether they should or not is another issue, of course.
They do have the right to evaluate the demand from the FBI and come to the conclusion that it so inherently evil that they can no longer in good conscience continue to conduct business in the US.
This issue would be even more interesting if only Steve Jobs were alive to deal with it. He would probably throw something at a flunkie.
The colossal egoism of Steve Jobs versus the self-perpetuating arrogance of the Famous But Incompetent? Now that would've been fun to watch. Jobsless Apple is boring.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 03, 2016, 12:53:00 AM
This issue would be even more interesting if only Steve Jobs were alive to deal with it. He would probably throw something at a flunkie.
The colossal egoism of Steve Jobs versus the self-perpetuating arrogance of the Famous But Incompetent? Now that would've been fun to watch. Jobsless Apple is boring.
I think Steve Jobs was more of an egotist than an egoist.
Quote from: Martinus on March 03, 2016, 04:13:18 AM
I think Steve Jobs was more of an egotist than an egoist.
I was on the shitter with my iDevice of iPain. So ea me.
Quote from: Berkut on March 02, 2016, 10:27:19 PM
Not exactly.
I am not saying that they should defy US law, I am saying that US citizens should support putting pressure on the US judicial system, or the US legislature if needed, to make it unnecessary for Apple to defy US law, because the cost will be too high. At the end of the day, I don't think Apple defying US law is even an option. If they exhaust their legal recourse, and the end decision of the US judicial system is that they must comply, I don't think there is any doubt that they will do so.
This is a reasonable argument, but partly because it abandons the "Apple should"/"Apple has a right to" train of argument, which is, in my opinion, bunk. Apple doesn't have an ethical position here, they have a business position. People can have ethical positions, corporations cannot.
QuoteAnd the reason I am giving for this is that if the US forces Apple to break their own security, other countries will have much greater leverage to demand that Apple do the same, for possibly much worse reasons, and further, that it will weaken Apple's own reasons to resist such efforts.
This is argument by assertion. Apple will have to comply with the laws of a given nation, or else lose their legal protections in that country. That is true even though Apple has cooperated in the execution of search warrants in the past, and will be true if they end up cooperating with this search warrant. Apple has no power to resist the demands of sovereign governments.
QuoteEven Russia and China have to consider that in their cost-benefit analysis as well
Russia and China have shown no indication that they value an international reputation for ethical/rule-of-law conduct. They may consider that in their cost-benefit calculations, but clearly the cost of going against international norms and expectations is not high (see: Crimea, Fiery Cross Reef, etc).
QuoteAs does Apple.
Indeed. Apple stands to lose some business if its "unbreakable" encryption is broken, and they will lose some value in terms of the credibility of future claims they may make for unbreakable security. I think that this is what is driving the "ethical stance" claims
Now, having said all of that, I am on neither side in this case. I have skin on both sides. I just believe that the debate should be framed in its proper context (in that this case involves a difference of degree, not kind, from other instances of mandatory technical assistance to law enforcement), and not as some kind of new quandary that we have to get right the first time lest dictators get more power to dictate.
Quote from: Martinus on March 03, 2016, 04:13:18 AM
I think Steve Jobs was more of an egotist than an egoist.
Since egotism is a synonym for egoism in some usages, this is probably a moot distinction. Jobs could not have been more egotist than egoist because egotism is a subset of egoism.
I've changed my mind. Fuck Apple. Fucking autistic assfucks feel pathologically compelled to reinvent iTunes with every goddamned patch, they deserve to get buttfucked by the Flambé Bureau of Intimidation.
Flip flopper
http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/mar/21/fbi-apple-court-hearing-postpone-unlock-terrorist-iphone
QuoteFBI may have found way to unlock San Bernardino shooter's iPhone without Apple
A court hearing designed to force Apple into compromising its security systems for the iPhone was cancelled Monday at the request of federal authorities, who said they potentially had another way into the San Bernardino shooter's phone.
Analysis Beyond surveillance: what could happen if Apple loses to the FBI
An Apple loss in the San Bernardino encryption case risks creating a world in which we can no longer trust the gadgets that track how we drive, when we're home and whether the door is locked
The astonishing reversal kicks the can down the road in what had become the climax of a two year battle over digital privacy between the US government and Silicon Valley. At the same time, the standoff between Apple and the Justice Department drew so much attention that policymakers or another court may weigh in soon regardless.
The government has until 5 April to determine whether it wants to pursue the case. Apple's attorneys, in a conference call with reporters, said they do not consider the development a legal victory and warned they could be back in the same situation in two weeks. The attorneys spoke on the condition of not being quoted by name.
The company's lawyers said they were as surprised as anyone and learned of the development in an afternoon phone call.
The government's potential solution raises its own questions: if investigators figure out a way to hack into the device without Apple's help, are they obligated to show Apple the security flaw they used to get inside? Attorneys for Apple, which almost assuredly would then patch such a flaw, said they would demand the government share their methods if they successfully get inside the phone.
On Monday evening, US magistrate judge Sheri Pym stayed her previous order that Apple help the government crack the passcode on the iPhone used by San Bernardino gunman Syed Farook, citing "uncertainty" on the part of the government.
In its filing, the justice department said it might have a different way to break into device – something cryptographers, leading data security experts and even Edward Snowden have said was possible without placing the cybersecurity of all iPhone users at risk through creating what Apple derisively calls "GovtOS".
Nevertheless, the government has stated repeatedly, under oath, that Apple alone had the technical ability to get inside the device. The government wanted Apple to use an official Apple software update to turn off some security features, including one that can cause the phone to wipe its storage if someone enters the wrong passcode 10 times.
The justice department request comes after more than a month of heated insistence that the only way the FBI could examine a locked iPhone used by the gunam was for Apple to write new software that would be missing some of its operating system's security features.
US investigators said they have continued to look for new ways into the iPhone 5C used by Farook since the justice department took Apple to court. In 2014, Apple updated its iPhone software such that it could no longer download data from locked devices without the user's passcode, which Apple does not know.
The White House, which has stood by the justice department in its feud with Apple, did not immediately comment on the reversal.
The FBI has been viewing security as an impedance rather than a necessity
Susan Landau
The forensic standstill caused many to question the FBI's technical chops.
A law enforcement official who would not agree to be quoted by name said that the FBI was approached by an "outside party" unaffiliated with the government on Sunday who offered a prospective path into the phone that would not require Apple's assistance. The official refused to identify the party, and said that many outside government had approached the FBI seeking to lend technical expertise.
The government said it would like to test the method and then file a report with the court.
Susan Landau, a cybersecurity expert who in a recent congressional hearing lambasted the FBI for its poor understanding of digital forensics, told the Guardian that she "certainly" felt that the unexpected development demonstrated her point. Landau also said she was not the "outside party" who provided the potential breakthrough.
"The FBI has been viewing security as an impedance rather than a necessity. That the Bureau may not need Apple's help to access the phone points up what's been true in this case all along: the FBI needs to strengthen its own technological capabilities," said Landau, a professor at Worcester Polytechnic Institute in Massachusetts.
The law enforcement official did not answer the Guardian's question about what the apparently unsolicited outside guidance indicates about the FBI's competence in digital investigations. James Comey, the FBI director who has made law enforcement access to encrypted communications a national issue, told Congress that sometimes the FBI does not have technical expertise to match its pop-culture portrayal as high-tech wizards.
Although the justice department had told the court that Apple had the "exclusive technical means" to provide the FBI with access to the locked phone, a second law enforcement official, who also would not be named, insisted the sudden breakthrough did not contradict the government's earlier assurances.
"The arguments in our pleading were that we needed Apple's assistance as a last resort, as the FBI's efforts to date had not been successful", the official said. The official would not say if the "outside party" was solicited by the government or offered an unsolicited technical suggestion.
But attorney Alex Abdo of the American Civil Liberties Union, which filed a brief supporting Apple, lambasted the government's reversal.
"This suggests that the FBI either doesn't understand the technology well enough or wasn't telling us the full truth earlier when it said that only Apple could break into the phone. Either possibility is disconcerting."
On the one hand, the delay short-circuits a massive privacy battle between America's most valuable company and its government that had been building for two years. National media were already descending Monday on southern California for the hearing in the federal courthouse in Riverside.
On the other, the government's reversal seems to only postpone the inevitable. Both US officials and technology executives have said that if the San Bernardino case had not brought the two sides into court, another one surely would.
Melanie Newman, a justice department spokeswoman, said the department was "cautiously optimistic" that the proposed new investigative tactic would work, but testing was required.
"If this solution works, it will allow us to search the phone and continue our investigation into the terrorist attack that killed 14 people and wounded 22 people," Newman said in a statement.
Yet the FBI is, for now, spared a showdown with Apple that saw an unprecedented near-unanimity of leading tech firms, more than a dozen of which rallied to Apple's defense in court. Even the US defense secretary, Ashton Carter, undercut the FBI in public by singing the praises of encryption in a recent San Francisco speech, suggesting a lack of government unity behind the FBI push.
Imagine that.
I think this is my favorite bit. :D
QuoteThe government's potential solution raises its own questions: if investigators figure out a way to hack into the device without Apple's help, are they obligated to show Apple the security flaw they used to get inside? Attorneys for Apple, which almost assuredly would then patch such a flaw, said they would demand the government share their methods if they successfully get inside the phone.
LOL, yeah of course they would "demand" that.
And my views on the governments obligation to provide that information to Apple is pretty damn similar to my view on Apple's obligation to provide the government with the information on how to break iPhone security.
:lmfao:
Quote from: Berkut on March 22, 2016, 09:47:10 AM
LOL, yeah of course they would "demand" that.
And my views on the governments obligation to provide that information to Apple is pretty damn similar to my view on Apple's obligation to provide the government with the information on how to break iPhone security.
:lmfao:
I don't think they have a choice to publically demand it. I don't think they expect it either, but they must show they take appropriate steps to protect their client's confidential information.
They can submit their FOIA request, and wait to have it bounced on Exemption 7.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on March 22, 2016, 10:42:49 AM
They can submit their FOIA request, and wait to have it bounced on Exemption 7.
and for non lawyer minority that would be...?
Quote from: viper37 on March 22, 2016, 12:13:36 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on March 22, 2016, 10:42:49 AM
They can submit their FOIA request, and wait to have it bounced on Exemption 7.
and for non lawyer minority that would be...?
available on google :)
Law enforcement methods and techniques.
Quote"That the Bureau may not need Apple's help to access the phone points up what's been true in this case all along: the FBI needs to strengthen its own technological capabilities," said Landau, a professor at Worcester Polytechnic Institute in Massachusetts.
Holy Glynco summer computer camp, Batman.
I would say how much I am looking forward to seeing how bad the Federal Fucknuts butcher this workaround, but they would never let that go public anyway.
*Outside FBI Laboratory Services, 10 minutes later*
"As a result of our investigation, and in close collaboration with other U.S. government departments and agencies, the FBI now has enough information to conclude that the electronic device in question possesses nothing of value in relation to the San Bernardino terrorist attacks, and has since disposed of the device."
:D
Quote from: garbon on March 22, 2016, 08:26:26 AM
I think this is my favorite bit. :D
QuoteThe government’s potential solution raises its own questions: if investigators figure out a way to hack into the device without Apple’s help, are they obligated to show Apple the security flaw they used to get inside? Attorneys for Apple, which almost assuredly would then patch such a flaw, said they would demand the government share their methods if they successfully get inside the phone.
I'd love it if the FBI's response was, "Sure, we'll share. In fact, we'll post the instructions on how to do it online and share it with everyone".
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 22, 2016, 06:19:12 PM
Quote"That the Bureau may not need Apple's help to access the phone points up what's been true in this case all along: the FBI needs to strengthen its own technological capabilities," said Landau, a professor at Worcester Polytechnic Institute in Massachusetts.
Holy Glynco summer computer camp, Batman.
I would say how much I am looking forward to seeing how bad the Federal Fucknuts butcher this workaround, but they would never let that go public anyway.
*Outside FBI Laboratory Services, 10 minutes later*
"As a result of our investigation, and in close collaboration with other U.S. government departments and agencies, the FBI now has enough information to conclude that the electronic device in question possesses nothing of value in relation to the San Bernardino terrorist attacks, and has since disposed of the device."
We can neither confirm nor deny.....
Quote from: 11B4V on March 22, 2016, 07:08:32 PM
We can neither confirm nor deny.....
You do realize that, after a lengthy FBI-led investigation, the FBI will determine that the FBI special agent responsible for shooting the iPhone in FBI custody will be found faultless and justified, don't you? You know that's how it's going to go down.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 22, 2016, 07:15:30 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on March 22, 2016, 07:08:32 PM
We can neither confirm nor deny.....
You do realize that, after a lengthy FBI-led investigation, the FBI will determine that the FBI special agent responsible for shooting the iPhone in FBI custody will be found faultless and justified, don't you? You know that's how it's going to go down.
He'll probably get a medal, if not a promotion.
All's better now
Quote
FBI says it has cracked terrorist's iPhone without Apple's help
The DOJ is dropping the case against Apple, since it no longer needs the company's help.
http://money.cnn.com/2016/03/28/news/companies/fbi-apple-iphone-case-cracked/index.html
Mah Pri-vo-cee!
That kinda makes Apple's contention that it would have taken many man-months of expert work to accomplish this look bad.
Quote from: grumbler on March 29, 2016, 11:49:32 AM
That kinda makes Apple's contention that it would have taken many man-months of expert work to accomplish this look bad.
Not really - so far as I know, the FBI method involved some exploit in the software, which Apple clearly doesn't know about, or they would fix it.
The question now is whether the FBI will share the information with Apple. Given that they hacked it with outside help suggests (although we can't be sure) that the exploit is known to other third parties.
Who else knows about?
It puts the FBI in kind of an interesting position. On the one hand, why should they help Apple, when Apple wasn't willing to help them? It is not their job to tell Apple about the flaws in their security, and if they tell Apple, Apple will certainly fix it, which means that the FBI is back to bringing court cases when it comes up in the future.
On the other hand, if the exploit puts iPhones in general at risk from anyone who knows the hack, there is a larger concern, even a potential national security concern. And since the exploit was not developed by the FBI, there is no real reason to suppose it will be limited to the FBI.
Be interesting to see how it plays out now...
It could be they unlocked it the old fashioned way, found the password written down or some other clue as to what it was.
Quote from: Berkut on March 29, 2016, 11:53:50 AM
Quote from: grumbler on March 29, 2016, 11:49:32 AM
That kinda makes Apple's contention that it would have taken many man-months of expert work to accomplish this look bad.
Not really - so far as I know, the FBI method involved some exploit in the software, which Apple clearly doesn't know about, or they would fix it.
The question now is whether the FBI will share the information with Apple. Given that they hacked it with outside help suggests (although we can't be sure) that the exploit is known to other third parties.
Who else knows about?
It puts the FBI in kind of an interesting position. On the one hand, why should they help Apple, when Apple wasn't willing to help them? It is not their job to tell Apple about the flaws in their security, and if they tell Apple, Apple will certainly fix it, which means that the FBI is back to bringing court cases when it comes up in the future.
On the other hand, if the exploit puts iPhones in general at risk from anyone who knows the hack, there is a larger concern, even a potential national security concern. And since the exploit was not developed by the FBI, there is no real reason to suppose it will be limited to the FBI.
Be interesting to see how it plays out now...
Actually, though I can't find it now, I know last week there were a few articles about something put in place by Obama administration that could potentially force government bodies to let tech companies know the details of flaws. Alas, as I can't quickly find anything in google, not sure how legit that was.
The CNN article said that it would be taken up by the FBI with the NSC. Basically, if it is determined that the flaw represents a potential threat to peoples phones in general, the admin will tell the FBI to let Apple know about it so they can close it.
I wonder if this will be used behind the scenes to attempt some kind of quid pro quo accommodation on future access?
Quote from: frunk on March 29, 2016, 12:06:36 PM
It could be they unlocked it the old fashioned way, found the password written down or some other clue as to what it was.
Or maybe they knew how to do it all along, but wanted to establish a precedent for the future. :ph34r:
Quote from: frunk on March 29, 2016, 12:06:36 PM
It could be they unlocked it the old fashioned way, found the password written down or some other clue as to what it was.
Good point.
Quote from: grumbler on March 29, 2016, 04:03:57 PM
Quote from: frunk on March 29, 2016, 12:06:36 PM
It could be they unlocked it the old fashioned way, found the password written down or some other clue as to what it was.
Good point.
No the FBI cracked it. They are the bestest.
Yeah, they cracked it alright. When they dropped it on the floor.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 29, 2016, 07:52:34 PM
Yeah, they cracked it alright. When they dropped it on the floor.
... and then blamed it on the local police.
Quote from: Berkut on March 29, 2016, 11:53:50 AM
Quote from: grumbler on March 29, 2016, 11:49:32 AM
That kinda makes Apple's contention that it would have taken many man-months of expert work to accomplish this look bad.
Not really - so far as I know, the FBI method involved some exploit in the software, which Apple clearly doesn't know about, or they would fix it.
Unlikely. The most likely solution (according to most forensic peeps I've been listening to) is NAND mirroring. It's a little more technically involved than this, but long story short, somebody realized they could make unlimited clones of the encrypted phone and just keep trying to break into the clones. Bricked from 10 unsuccessful attempts at 0-0-0-9? Make another clone and start guessing at 0-0-1-0.
Basically, the phone can know how many times passcodes have been tried, but the phone doesn't have any way to know it's a copy.
Interesting. How do you make the clone though?
clone vat.
Quote from: Berkut on March 29, 2016, 10:07:02 PM
Interesting. How do you make the clone though?
You just copy over the 1s and 0s.
That's it, the genie's out of the bottle:
FBI agrees to unlock another iPhone in homicide case
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-35933239 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-35933239)
That cannot be right, we were assured this was a one off thing and would set no precedent.
Quote from: Berkut on March 31, 2016, 09:19:28 AM
That cannot be right, we were assured this was a one off thing and would set no precedent.
Well yes it does establish the precedent that once the gov't is able to do something for themselves, they'll do it many times over.
Quote from: Berkut on March 31, 2016, 09:19:28 AM
That cannot be right, we were assured this was a one off thing and would set no precedent.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F3.bp.blogspot.com%2F_w5crfNFESpM%2FTB9UIiEjjMI%2FAAAAAAAABuk%2FeWpYR82SPzk%2Fs400%2FCasablanca_ClaudeRains_Shocked.jpg&hash=43a5ac80272927fc10e892759e9223ec44b7de63)
But as garbon says, once they can do it themselves there is no reason for them to make a concession like that.
Quote from: Berkut on March 29, 2016, 10:07:02 PM
Interesting. How do you make the clone though?
As I understand it, it's pretty labor intensive- it involves desoldering the chips from the phone's motherboards and flashing clones of them individually. I imagine most of the chips need to be identical, because Apple knows enough about encryption to make the hashes rely on the "identity" of other chips from the iPhone, or else anybody with a Cellebrite machine could just copy the encrypted contents of the storage to any other iPhone.
http://www.networkworld.com/article/3048488/security/nand-mirroring-proof-of-concept-show-that-fbi-could-use-it-to-crack-iphone.html
Quote from: Berkut on March 31, 2016, 09:19:28 AM
That cannot be right, we were assured this was a one off thing and would set no precedent.
What, exactly, were we assured was the one-time thing, and by whom were we assured?
Further proof that you can mask any amount of incompetence if your budget is big enough.
QuoteThe FBI paid more than $1 million to crack the San Bernardino iPhone
washingtonpost.com
FBI Director James Comey suggested Thursday that the bureau paid more than $1 million to access an iPhone belonging to one of the San Bernardino attackers, the first time the agency has offered a possible price tag in the high-profile case.
While speaking at a security forum in London hosted by the Aspen Institute, Comey would not offer a precise dollar figure, saying only that it cost "a lot" to get into the phone.
He said the cost of the tool was "more than I will make in the remainder of this job, which is seven years and four months, for sure." As he made his remark, Comey, a former federal prosecutor who speaks precisely in public settings, paused as if to consider the math he was performing in his head.
The FBI director serves a 10-year term, though Comey's predecessor, Robert S. Mueller III, served for 12 years after Congress approved a request from President Obama to extend his tenure.
Comey was confirmed July 2013 and took office in September of that year, so he has more than seven years left in his term. According to the federal statute detailing his salary, Comey is paid the rate set for Level II of the executive salary schedule. That means he makes $185,100 a year, under the pay schedules that went into effect this year.
As a result, Comey's remarks strongly implied that the bureau paid at least $1.3 million to get onto the phone, which had belonged to Syed Rizwan Farook, who, with his wife, killed 14 people during the Dec. 2 terror attack in San Bernardino, Calif.
"But it was, in my view, worth it," the FBI director said of what it cost to access the phone's data.
An FBI spokesman said the bureau would not comment on Comey's remarks.
Federal authorities have not publicly revealed who helped the FBI unlock the San Bernardino iPhone, which was at the center of an extended fight between the government and Apple. The Justice Department had maintained that only Apple could help it access the phone without erasing all of its data before abruptly saying it had gotten help from an outside party and no longer needed Apple's assistance.
According to people familiar with the issue, the FBI cracked the phone with the help of professional hackers who were paid a one-time flat fee. Law enforcement officials have said recently that the FBI has found no links to foreign terrorists on the phone, though they are still hoping that geolocation data on the device could help reveal what the attackers did during an 18-minute period after the shooting.
Earlier this month, Comey had said that the government was considering telling Apple how it accessed the phone, though he acknowledged that if that happened, the technology giant would fix the flaw and close off that avenue. But he said the tool would only work on a "narrow slice" of devices, saying he was "pretty confident" it would not work on newer models.
Comey conceded Thursday that the tool would work only on an iPhone 5c running iOS 9. In part because of the price tag, Comey said he hoped the government could figure out a solution to access other, more current phones without having to make mass appeals to the tech industry for some kind of hack.
He noted that there were 18,000 law enforcement agencies across the U.S. that might want to access phones and could not afford what the FBI paid to access the San Bernardino phone. The FBI's total budget for fiscal year 2016 was more than $8.7 billion, and the bureau requested more than $9.5 billion for fiscal year 2017.
"I'm hoping that we can somehow get to a place where we have a sensible solution, or set of solutions, that doesn't involve hacking, it doesn't involve spending tons of money in a way that's un-scaleable," Comey said.
i don't remember anyone claiming that if the government gained the ability to hack a phone they would never do it again.
Damn, a million bones. What a bunch of nards.
Quote from: grumbler on March 31, 2016, 11:25:33 AM
Quote from: Berkut on March 31, 2016, 09:19:28 AM
That cannot be right, we were assured this was a one off thing and would set no precedent.
What, exactly, were we assured was the one-time thing, and by whom were we assured?
http://www.cnbc.com/2016/03/29/apple-vs-fbi-all-you-need-to-know.html
Quote
What was the battle over?
Last month, a federal judge asked Apple to help the FBI unlock an iPhone belonging to Syed Farook, who was responsible for the shootings in San Bernardino in December which left 14 people dead.
The judge asked Apple to provide "reasonable technical assistance" to the U.S. authorities, which would require the technology giant to overhaul the system that disables the phone after 10 unsuccessful password attempts. Once this feature kicks in, all the data on the phone is inaccessible. Apple declined to help the FBI.
At the time, Apple chief executive Tim Cook called the order "chilling" and said that it would require writing new software that would be "a master key, capable of opening hundreds of millions of locks". Cook's argument was that if the FBI could access this iPhone, nothing would stop them from doing it to many others.
Law enforcement authorities insisted that it was a one-off request. As a result the case went to court.