A Message to Our Customers(apple.com)

over 3 years ago from Jérémy Barbet, Front-end developer @ Ueno.

  • Jim SilvermanJim Silverman, over 3 years ago

    Again in plain English, the FBI wants Apple to create a special version of iOS that only works on the one iPhone they have recovered.

    pretty big detail that's being overlooked. the court order is about accessing ONE iPhone. i don't see why Apple can't do this without hellfire and brimstone raining down.

    1 point
    • Kushtrim XhaferiKushtrim Xhaferi, over 3 years ago

      if they do it for the ONE iphone, than it can be done for all. once a wall is down, you can't go back.

      6 points
      • Jim SilvermanJim Silverman, over 3 years ago

        another important detail:

        The FBI will send Apple the recovered iPhone so that this customized version of iOS never physically leaves the Apple campus.

        each instance would need a specific court order and Apple's compliance.

        0 points
        • Ethan BondEthan Bond, over 3 years ago (edited over 3 years ago )

          Right up until the FBI asks them to do it for one that Apple does not want to comply with. The danger here is all in the precedent.

          Currently, Apple's defense has mostly been "we have no technical ability to decrypt users' phones." This is what protects them from being held in contempt of court when denying court orders to do as such.

          If they say "yes he's a terrorist anyways, we can do it just for this one instance," it proves that they can also do it for drug dealers, drug users, political dissidents, journalists – politicians even. You might say "well they'd need a court order, so that wouldn't happen for dissidents/journalists/politicians" and you'd be right... if you were talking exclusively about American dissidents or politicians. Foreign people are offered no such protection, and if Apple creates the ability to target them, you'd be naive to think the FBI/CIA wouldn't leverage it every chance they got.

          That's all still under the assumption that every court order is a valid one (a stretch, these days).

          This is a bad thing for everyone. Apple should be praised for this stance, it takes serious spine to stand up to both the federal government as well as a population that wants nothing more than to rid itself of terrorism.

          7 points
          • Marc EdwardsMarc Edwards, over 3 years ago

            The danger here is all in the precedent.

            Yes × 1,000,000.

            This case is a very big deal, and it deserves the attention it’s getting.

            3 points
    • Jeff ShinJeff Shin, over 3 years ago

      I think the biggest concern is precedent. If Apple complies here, then it creates precedent that may allow other judges in other cases to order Apple to do the same, but for a different UDID.

      7 points
      • Jim SilvermanJim Silverman, over 3 years ago

        as long as it's a warranted search, as this is, i don't see the issue.

        0 points
        • Daniel De LaneyDaniel De Laney, over 3 years ago

          A warrant is meaningless in the modern age. Government agencies can get any warrant for anything they want, whether the search is legitimate or not.

          See also: FISA court and NSA.

          5 points
      • Nic TrentNic Trent, over 3 years ago

        First they ask for a back door, then they ask for a direct NSA stream, then FBI... ya never know.

        0 points
    • Terry OTerry O, over 3 years ago

      It's called setting a precedent.

      2 points