This is why I will not own any Apple products!

[Pariah3j]

As long as your drawbridge was not owned by the city you lived in and used during the committment of capital murder by terrorists who are NOT ISIS affiliated, you seem to have a clear cut infallible argument.

They own the phone, which is the physical hardware - not the IOS software, that is licenced. Apple isn't trying to keep them from hacking the phone, they just aren't hacking it for the FBI (or building a special backdoor for "government use only").

[Bitter Clinger]

As long as your drawbridge was not owned by the city you lived in and used during the committment of capital murder by terrorists who are NOT ISIS affiliated, you seem to have a clear cut infallible argument.

They own the phone, which is the physical hardware - not the IOS software, that is licenced. Apple isn't trying to keep them from hacking the phone, they just aren't hacking it for the FBI (or building a special backdoor for "government use only").

The data belonging to the terrorist is the issue. The IOS is simply the application needed to access it. HAND OVER THE DATA

[Dave2]

As long as your drawbridge was not owned by the city you lived in and used during the committment of capital murder by terrorists who are NOT ISIS affiliated, you seem to have a clear cut infallible argument.

They own the phone, which is the physical hardware - not the IOS software, that is licenced. Apple isn't trying to keep them from hacking the phone, they just aren't hacking it for the FBI (or building a special backdoor for "government use only").

The data belonging to the terrorist is the issue. The IOS is simply the application needed to access it. HAND OVER THE DATA

It simply does not work like that.

[Pariah3j]

I think you are confused how technology works... The data they want is on the phone.... the FBI has the phone, there is nothing for them to hand over.

[jerry_r60]

How is the government able to compel somebody to do labor? This thing does not exist yet and would take an engineer some time to create. Can the government force me to dig a ditch or write a poem?

His password is probably 1234 anyways.

ok, I couldn't resist. yes! At least if history can be repeated. Think of Vietnam era. We had the draft. Young men were drafter and I would venture to say many were compelled to dig some deep ditches and holes.

There are probably also a bunch of folks in prisons that have been compelled to do some digging as well.

I know that's a bit different but I couldn't resist.

[jerry_r60]

Edited: Ignore my post below...I read a bit more and I see at least a bit more of what was asked for. It does sound like anything done to get at this one phone could then be used for others.

Has there actually been anyone from the FBI acknowledge that they asked for a back door to all iphones? The only place I've seen that is in the letter from cook. The one interview I watched with an FBI spokesman was that he didn't want any back door and for all he cared, they could just print the contents of that one phone on paper and give it to him.

I don't trust the government but I don't trust what cook is saying either. I assume he can be twisting it a bit to make a compelling public statement to garner a public outcry, just like politicians do. Maybe the FBI did demand the backdoor and I just have not seen it yet. I've only seen Cook make that claim so far.

[Redneck_Buddha]

Just throwing out wild theories here, but is there something they can develop that will only work with that phone's unique identifier? Guys who know just enough about these matters just to be dangerous want to know.

[WildBill]

Just throwing out wild theories here, but is there something they can develop that will only work with that phone's unique identifier? Guys who know just enough about these matters just to be dangerous want to know.

That is what the writ ordered.

[Redneck_Buddha]

Just throwing out wild theories here, but is there something they can develop that will only work with that phone's unique identifier? Guys who know just enough about these matters just to be dangerous want to know.

That is what the writ ordered.

Gotcha...thanks. So Cook's contention that this hack will be used to propagate a mass breach security is false?

[Jusme]

Just throwing out wild theories here, but is there something they can develop that will only work with that phone's unique identifier? Guys who know just enough about these matters just to be dangerous want to know.

That is what the writ ordered.

Gotcha...thanks. So Cook's contention that this hack will be used to propagate a mass breach security is false?

What will happen is that after the door is opened, then any judge can order Apple to do the same for any other phone it deems necessary. So yeah, the potential is there for this to become a common practice rendering the idea of security, worthless.

[Pawpaw]

Has there actually been anyone from the FBI acknowledge that they asked for a back door to all iphones? The only place I've seen that is in the letter from cook. The one interview I watched with an FBI spokesman was that he didn't want any back door and for all he cared, they could just print the contents of that one phone on paper and give it to him.

I don't trust the government but I don't trust what cook is saying either. I assume he can be twisting it a bit to make a compelling public statement to garner a public outcry, just like politicians do. Maybe the FBI did demand the backdoor and I just have not seen it yet. I've only seen Cook make that claim so far.

It is not possible to create a hack to access just one iphone. If it works on that iphone, it will be usable on any iphone.

Apple knows that caving in to this court order would cost them some small number of individual accounts. They also know it would cost them much more in lost commercial and government business.

Creating this hack would cause lots of corporations to cancel their contracts. The same goes for many government agencies. The security of iOS is what got them those big customers to begin with.

[Dave2]

Just throwing out wild theories here, but is there something they can develop that will only work with that phone's unique identifier? Guys who know just enough about these matters just to be dangerous want to know.

That is what the writ ordered.

Gotcha...thanks. So Cook's contention that this hack will be used to propagate a mass breach security is false?

Cook's statement is accurate. The FBI is being disingenuous in that it's impossible to do exactly what they're asking and no more. The technology to bypass security on one iPhone is necessarily the technology to bypass security on any iPhone.

[TomsTXCHL]

It is not possible to create a hack to access just one iphone. If it works on that iphone, it will be usable on any iphone.

Apple knows that caving in to this court order would cost them some small number of individual accounts. They also know it would cost them much more in lost commercial and government business.

Creating this hack would cause lots of corporations to cancel their contracts. The same goes for many government agencies. The security of iOS is what got them those big customers to begin with.

Indeed Apple has been embarassed in the past by iOS security breeches. So they fixed it. Now the FBI is asking them to un-fix it, for one incident. Like banning guns for all because of one bad guy with a gun.

I hope Apple stands their ground. Let the FBI pursue their (already stale) investigation the old-fashioned way.

[The Annoyed Man]

I don't think so. It is a matter of removing the technical ways that you can be legally compelled to give up the data.

Apple built a bridge with a locked gate.

In the past, the .gov wrote court orders to force Apple to unlock the gate so they could cross the bridge. Apple learned from that so they didn't build a better gate, they burned the bridge.

So now they are writing a court order telling them to rebuild the bridge.

Android, I think your explanation is excellent.
Thank you for your post.

Hands down, the best illustration yet.

The issue boils down to whether or not you think that gov't should have the power to force you to rebuild what you've already destroyed - particularly if that consists of intellectual property. Can you be compelled to "remember" something you've not only forgotten, but have forgotten the method you used to create it in the first place? Well, sort of....... A judge can hold you in contempt and jail you until you remember, but if you've literally forgotten, nothing can make you remember what is no longer in your brain. If Apple destroyed all code and documentation for a previous bridge, it is not as simple as holding them in contempt until they provide what gov't wants. Because of the many changes in Apple iOS over the years, they wouldn't be compelled to RE-create something they once had; they would be compelled to create something entirely new.

iOS is Apple's property, and its users are granted a license to use it. Let's say I build a moat halfway down my driveway, WELL onto my property and off the public highway, and I also install a draw bridge across the moat which can be lowered whenever I grant a visitor a license to access to the rest of my property. By definition, that drawbridge is also well onto my property and off the public highway. Sometime later I decide that it was not only a mistake to make that access possible by drawbridge, but also my moat is too narrow and shallow. So I tear down the drawbridge and burn both the wood I made it out of and the plans I built it from, and I dig my moat even deeper and make it wider. Then one day the FBI comes along and says, "lower the drawbridge". My truthful answer is, "I cannot, I don't have one anymore". So the FBI says, "rebuild the drawbridge you once had". My truthful answer is, I no longer have the wood, I no longer have the plans, and even if I did, that drawbridge would not cross this moat!" So the FBI answers, "we want you to build a road-going mobile drawbridge which will not only span your moat, but then we can use it to defeat the moats of other private citizens". I respectfully tell the FBI to pound sand.....build it themselves.

That is a more detailed explanation.

As long as your drawbridge was not owned by the city you lived in and used during the committment of capital murder by terrorists who are NOT ISIS affiliated, you seem to have a clear cut infallible argument.

Just to be clear.....you require that TWO conditions be met: (1) not municipally owned (in my example it is privately owned on my land), and (2) not used during the commitment of terrorist murder. I rather suspect that you meant "OR" instead of "and". Since my example excluded municipal ownership, the clear implication is that I no longer own the rights to my own property if someone else beyond my control misuses it for terrorist purposes. According to that position, if I have some tenuous connection of which I may not even be aware (coworker of, distantly related to, attended the same mosque/church at some point, college roommates with, 3rd cousin of a friend, etc.) with a person who turns out to be an ISIS terrorist, and that ISIS terrorist uses my drawbridge once to sneak across my property uninvited in order to climb over another the back fence of and link up with another ISIS terrorist who turns out to be a co-conspirator, and the two of them commit an act of terrorism in which people are killed. I no longer own my drawbridge.....the government does?

I'm not the terrorist. My terms of use (must be invited across...i.e. "licensed... for lawful purposes) of my drawbridge were clearly violated. I committed no crime. But since my drawbridge was used unlawfully by one terrorist to connect with another terrorist for the purpose of committing capital murder. ........I no longer own my drawbridge.

Jefferson is spinning in his grave.

[Bitter Clinger]

As long as your drawbridge was not owned by the city you lived in and used during the committment of capital murder by terrorists who are NOT ISIS affiliated, you seem to have a clear cut infallible argument.

Just to be clear.....you require that TWO conditions be met: (1) not municipally owned (in my example it is privately owned on my land), and (2) not used during the commitment of terrorist murder. I rather suspect that you meant "OR" instead of "and". Since my example excluded municipal ownership, the clear implication is that I no longer own the rights to my own property if someone else beyond my control misuses it for terrorist purposes. According to that position, if I have some tenuous connection of which I may not even be aware (coworker of, distantly related to, attended the same mosque/church at some point, college roommates with, 3rd cousin of a friend, etc.) with a person who turns out to be an ISIS terrorist, and that ISIS terrorist uses my drawbridge once to sneak across my property uninvited in order to climb over another the back fence of and link up with another ISIS terrorist who turns out to be a co-conspirator, and the two of them commit an act of terrorism in which people are killed. I no longer own my drawbridge.....the government does?

I'm not the terrorist. My terms of use (must be invited across...i.e. "licensed... for lawful purposes) of my drawbridge were clearly violated. I committed no crime. But since my drawbridge was used unlawfully by one terrorist to connect with another terrorist for the purpose of committing capital murder. ........I no longer own my drawbridge.

Jefferson is spinning in his grave.

OK, the bridge thing has me spinning, i think I may be the terrorist now

Let's try this to bring it back to your favorite technology vendor Apple:

Two hypotheticals -

1.0 Tim Cook is scared that ISIS will initiate reprisals upon Apple worldwide if he is seen to cooperate with the FBI and he is less scared of violating the court order. But he does have the technological solution.

2.0 Tim Cook has the technological solution and has already assisted the FBI in retrieving the data. This whole thing is a smokescreen designed to not let ISIS know that they are about to join the 72 virgins travel club (with a nod to Andy).

Like it? I do. If you do, let's try to solve the mystery of Flight 370.