Apple's Tim Cook blasts order to unlock iPhone, vowing to fight court order


CDNBear
+1
#1
Apple's Tim Cook blasts order to unlock iPhone, vowing to fight court order

Apple Inc. chief executive Tim Cook says his company will fight an order to open a user's iPhone, saying to do otherwise would create a backdoor that could potentially be used on other future devices.

Apple's Tim Cook blasts order to unlock iPhone, vowing to fight court order - Business - CBC News

So let me get this straight. Cook says that if Apple works with the FBI on cracking the phone, Apple couldn't keep the way they do so secret?

Is that supposed to reassure Apple customers?
 
TenPenny
+1
#2
To me the key thing is that the state (or county, whatever) are the ones that own the phone. Apple should work with the owner of the phone to unlock it, since it's a legal ruling.


End of story, in my books.
 
CDNBear
#3
Quote: Originally Posted by TenPenny View Post

To me the key thing is that the state (or county, whatever) are the ones that own the phone. Apple should work with the owner of the phone to unlock it, since it's a legal ruling.


End of story, in my books.

Seems reasonable.
 
Jinentonix
+4
#4  Top Rated Post
Apple slays me. All the bitching, pissing and moaning they did about Microsoft's business practices years ago and today they are worse than Gates and Microsoft ever were.
 
Remington1
#5
Quote: Originally Posted by CDNBear View Post

Apple's Tim Cook blasts order to unlock iPhone, vowing to fight court order

Apple Inc. chief executive Tim Cook says his company will fight an order to open a user's iPhone, saying to do otherwise would create a backdoor that could potentially be used on other future devices.

Apple's Tim Cook blasts order to unlock iPhone, vowing to fight court order - Business - CBC News

So let me get this straight. Cook says that if Apple works with the FBI on cracking the phone, Apple couldn't keep the way they do so secret?

Is that supposed to reassure Apple customers?

It is so rare that this type of opportunities becomes available; the names and leads inside that phone could save so many lives, because we can safety deduct that the contacts inside that phone (if any) are not our friends. Is it possible that Cook is so dumb ?
 
DaSleeper
+1
#6
Quote: Originally Posted by CDNBear View Post

Apple's Tim Cook blasts order to unlock iPhone, vowing to fight court order

Apple Inc. chief executive Tim Cook says his company will fight an order to open a user's iPhone, saying to do otherwise would create a backdoor that could potentially be used on other future devices.

Apple's Tim Cook blasts order to unlock iPhone, vowing to fight court order - Business - CBC News

So let me get this straight. Cook says that if Apple works with the FBI on cracking the phone, Apple couldn't keep the way they do so secret?

Is that supposed to reassure Apple customers?

To prove that the information retrieved is valid, wouldn't they have to inform the court as to how it was done?
 
gerryh
+2
#7
Quote: Originally Posted by Remington1 View Post

It is so rare that this type of opportunities becomes available; the names and leads inside that phone could save so many lives, because we can safety deduct that the contacts inside that phone (if any) are not our friends. Is it possible that Cook is so dumb ?


No, but obviously you are. Cook is right. The info will get out as to how it was cracked. The defence, or courts, will want to have forensic evidence that the phones were cracked and that the information retrieved was valid. There will be a "paper" trail.


If the FBI wants to know what's on that phone, then they need to hire a damn good black hat to crack it and keep the OS supplier out of it.
 
Ron in Regina
#8
I believe I understand where Apple's Tim Cook is
coming from. I also believe I understand where the
FBI, the Obama administration, The Judge, etc....
are also coming from.

Everyone has their line in the sand and for this Tim
Cook & Apple....this is theirs. So be it.

If it comes out that info on this phone could have
prevented future terrorist attacks, and future deaths
of innocent civilian, military personal, etc...and ****
gets real and goes down, then Tim Cook should be
tried as an accessory to whatever murders and/or
terrorist attacks this info could have prevented,
should they come to pass.

Apple in turn should be found financially liable in any
civil suits arising from any murders and/or terrorist
attacks this info could have prevented, should they
come to pass.

Fair enough?

I mean, eventually some 14yr will hack these
phones, or the NSA, or whatever. It's just a
matter of the time frame I'm assuming.

If Apple, & in turn this Tim Cook defy a court
order....drag their feet, and people die due to
this...then they're at least partially responsible.
 
gerryh
#9
Quote: Originally Posted by Ron in Regina View Post

I believe I understand where Apple's Tim Cook is
coming from. I also believe I understand where the
FBI, the Obama administration, The Judge, etc....
are also coming from.

Everyone has their line in the sand and for this Tim
Cook & Apple....this is theirs. So be it.

If it comes out that info on this phone could have
prevented future terrorist attacks, and future deaths
of innocent civilian, military personal, etc...and ****
gets real and goes down, then Tim Cook should be
tried as an accessory to whatever murders and/or
terrorist attacks this info could have prevented,
should they come to pass.

Apple in turn should be found financially liable in any
civil suits arising from any murders and/or terrorist
attacks this info could have prevented, should they
come to pass.

Fair enough?

I mean, eventually some 14yr will hack these
phones, or the NSA, or whatever. It's just a
matter of the time frame I'm assuming.

If Apple, & in turn this Tim Cook defy a court
order....drag their feet, and people die due to
this...then they're at least partially responsible.



In other words, the end justifies the means. Correct?
 
Ron in Regina
+1
#10
Quote: Originally Posted by gerryh View Post

In other words, the end justifies the means. Correct?

No, I'm say, "If that's their line in the sand, then so
be it! If it leads to preventable deaths, though, then
they'd have to accept at least partial responsibility."

If they (Tim Cook & in turn Apple) wont turn over a
method to obtain this information from one of their
products, then that's the way it is. Blood from a stone.

It it turns out this info is discovered to have been able
to prevent future deaths and destruction, then they
(Tim Cook & in turn Apple) would also be culpable &
in turn liable. Life is about choices. They've made theirs.
Last edited by Ron in Regina; Feb 17th, 2016 at 08:14 PM..Reason: missed a word
 
gerryh
#11
Quote: Originally Posted by Ron in Regina View Post

No, I'm say, "If that's their line in the sand, then so
be it! If it leads to preventable deaths, though, then
they'd have to accept at least partial responsibility."

If they (Tim Cook & in turn Apple) wont turn over a
method to obtain this information from one of their
products, then that's the way it is. Blood from a stone.

It it turns out this info is discovered to have been able
to prevent future deaths and destruction, then they
(Tim Cook & in turn Apple) would also be culpable &
in turn liable. Life is about choices. They've made theirs.


My line in the sand is torture. No torture for any reason. So, if it is found that torture could have given info that prevented deaths and because of my opposition to torture, then I am, at least partially, responsible for those deaths then I am culpable for those deaths.

Do you support torture, Ron?

Oh, and what apple is being asked to do, is break their privacy encryption and give that break to law enforcement. PRIVACY being the key word here.
 
damngrumpy
+2
#12
If they fail to comply throw the board of directors in jail until the management doe
comply
 
darkbeaver
#13
I-phone? fuk I'm old
 
DaSleeper
+1
#14
Doesn't a court order give the police the right to strip search you your car your house, etc, why not a phone?
 
gerryh
+1
#15
Quote: Originally Posted by DaSleeper View Post

Doesn't a court order give the police the right to strip search you your car your house, etc, why not a phone?


Then let the FBI figure out how to break the encryption.
 
DaSleeper
+1
#16
If you have a safety deposit box, and you die committing a crime a judge can order the bank to open it, the police don't have to find a key that works on their own
 
Ron in Regina
#17
Quote: Originally Posted by gerryh View Post

My line in the sand is torture. No torture for any reason. So, if it is found that torture could have given info that prevented deaths and because of my opposition to torture, then I am, at least partially, responsible for those deaths then I am culpable for those deaths.

Do you support torture, Ron?

Apples & oranges. Not even close with your strawman.

Is your opposition to torture fundamental & time sensitive
to preventing any future preventable terrorist actions? You
are not even barking up the wrong tree, but the wrong forest
in the wrong postal code.

Quote: Originally Posted by gerryh View Post

Oh, and what apple is being asked to do, is break their privacy encryption and give that break to law enforcement. PRIVACY being the key word here.

That's their choice to ignore a court order & accept
those consequences, and in turn responsibility for
their actions if it leads to preventable attacks.
 
bill barilko
#18
Sounds like Apple is getting some terrible legal advice this isn't a dry theoretical argument-the US gubmint will have their way.
 
gerryh
#19
Quote: Originally Posted by DaSleeper View Post

If you have a safety deposit box, and you die committing a crime a judge can order the bank to open it, the police don't have to find a key that works on their own


Yup, they can. The comparison would be the owner of this phone, which is the city, I believe.
 
petros
+2
#20
Quote: Originally Posted by DaSleeper View Post

Doesn't a court order give the police the right to strip search you your car your house, etc, why not a phone?

Welcome to Canada...

They already can search your phone. No warrant required.


Supreme Court allows warrantless cell phone searches

US, different story, they need a warrant.


How the Supreme Court's Cellphone Decision Affects You
 
gerryh
#21
Quote: Originally Posted by Ron in Regina View Post

Apples & oranges. Not even close with your strawman.

Is your opposition to torture fundamental & time sensitive
to preventing any future preventable terrorist actions? You
are not even barking up the wrong tree, but the wrong forest
in the wrong postal code.



Strawman, eh. Well, your opinion.


It's a matter of why you have drawn the line. How much you are willing to give up.
 
Ron in Regina
+1
#22
Quote: Originally Posted by gerryh View Post

Strawman, eh. Well, your opinion.


It's a matter of why you have drawn the line. How much you are willing to give up.

With respect to what? I've recently walked away from
$2000net/month to a smaller pay cheque to have an
improved home life...I'll adapt and be happy.

I know this might not seem to have anything to do with
Apple & Tim Cook to you, but to me it seems about as
relevant as your stance on torture or my girlfriends love
of gardening with respect to Apple & Tim Cook.

Maybe I'm reading your stance incorrectly and just am
not seeing the correlation between your statement and
the O.P., but I'm not seeing it. Apples & oranges.
 
IdRatherBeSkiing
+1
#23
Quote: Originally Posted by CDNBear View Post

Apple's Tim Cook blasts order to unlock iPhone, vowing to fight court order

Apple Inc. chief executive Tim Cook says his company will fight an order to open a user's iPhone, saying to do otherwise would create a backdoor that could potentially be used on other future devices.

Apple's Tim Cook blasts order to unlock iPhone, vowing to fight court order - Business - CBC News

So let me get this straight. Cook says that if Apple works with the FBI on cracking the phone, Apple couldn't keep the way they do so secret?

Is that supposed to reassure Apple customers?

What they are saying that if they remove their security measures, that that "unsecure" code may wind up in the wrong hands and be used on any phone. Also from my understanding, the FBI is using a statute from 1789 to ask for this. I am not sure how the founding fathers in 1789 has full knowledge of smart phones to truly understand the magnitude of the laws they were writing. I also think it is fundamentally wrong for the American government to force a company to 'break' its own security even if the cause is good.

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

Quote: Originally Posted by petros View Post

Welcome to Canada...

They already can search your phone. No warrant required.


Supreme Court allows warrantless cell phone searches

US, different story, they need a warrant.


How the Supreme Court's Cellphone Decision Affects You

Only if phone is not passcode protected. If its passcode protected, they need a warrant.
 
petros
#24
How many people does it require to unlock an iPhone? 1? 10? 100? 1000?
 
darkbeaver
#25
Quote: Originally Posted by petros View Post

Welcome to Canada...

They already can search your phone. No warrant required.


Supreme Court allows warrantless cell phone searches

US, different story, they need a warrant.


How the Supreme Court's Cellphone Decision Affects You

SeaRCHING MY PHONE? dO YOU THINK IT WILLL HELP?
 
skookumchuck
#26
Quote: Originally Posted by gerryh View Post

My line in the sand is torture. No torture for any reason. So, if it is found that torture could have given info that prevented deaths and because of my opposition to torture, then I am, at least partially, responsible for those deaths then I am culpable for those deaths.

Do you support torture, Ron?

Oh, and what apple is being asked to do, is break their privacy encryption and give that break to law enforcement. PRIVACY being the key word here.

So we assume that you get to decide what torture is. You are totally against torture, even though you call people names continually and the language on your avatar is telling as well. Do you suffer because your brain is miswired gerry? Is that torture?
 
darkbeaver
#27
Quote: Originally Posted by petros View Post

How many people does it require to unlock an iPhone? 1? 10? 100? 1000?

Well it's bean a week and we haven't singularized you yet, but past a predetermined number if we remain unsatisfied we would simply eradicate your xcoordinates, please call central intelligemces -800-orelse.
Last edited by Ron in Regina; Feb 18th, 2016 at 07:58 AM..Reason: Tried to fix quote. db, this [/QUOTE] should be after quote...
 
petros
#28
Quote: Originally Posted by IdRatherBeSkiing View Post

Only if phone is not passcode protected. If its passcode protected, they need a warrant.

Nope. Read Fearon v. R.
The ruling also dispels any notion that a password lock on a cell phone may denote some expectation of privacy that would prevent an invasion by law enforcement.
 
gerryh
#29
Quote: Originally Posted by petros View Post

Nope. Read Fearon v. R.
The ruling also dispels any notion that a password lock on a cell phone may denote some expectation of privacy that would prevent an invasion by law enforcement.


Lol, no, that's not what it says, and the decision was a 4/3 split.
 
DaSleeper
+1
#30
Quote: Originally Posted by IdRatherBeSkiing View Post

What they are saying that if they remove their security measures, that that "unsecure" code may wind up in the wrong hands and be used on any phone. Also from my understanding, the FBI is using a statute from 1789 to ask for this. I am not sure how the founding fathers in 1789 has full knowledge of smart phones to truly understand the magnitude of the laws they were writing. I also think it is fundamentally wrong for the American government to force a company to 'break' its own security even if the cause is good.

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



Only if phone is not passcode protected. If its passcode protected, they need a warrant.

I understand that they have a warrant...
You have an IPhone, probably a newer model than mine so you know that you have only ten tries at the passcode then the the phone is wiped, and if your phone is stolen you can wipe it remotely from any PC or phone, by loggin in to https://itunes.apple.com/ca/app/find...376101648?mt=8
Apple could probably write a software update for one particular phone to disable that feature but they would need the passcode to update it.....catch 22