# Should Apple help the government hack into encrypted devices? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [February 17, 2016, 1:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-apple-help-the-government-hack-into-encrypted-devices/746333 "2016-02-17T13:20:10Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 27
**Author:** ![Snowboarder\_Bo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/snowboarder_bo/32/229_2.png) [@Snowboarder\_Bo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snowboarder_Bo)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2016, 3:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-apple-help-the-government-hack-into-encrypted-devices/746333/521 "2016-03-01T03:27:59Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > I’ll just forget trying to multi quote on this thing here… > > So, **Bo,** true or false: Apple can automatically disable the OS on a iPhone if you violate the EULA, such as by renting the device. I’ll answer after you answer some of my questions from Post #509; okay? ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2016, 3:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-apple-help-the-government-hack-into-encrypted-devices/746333/522 "2016-03-01T03:38:36Z")
I’ll avoid the multi quote and respond to a few things: installing incompatible machinery has literally nothing to do with the question. You asked that question three different ways, so I’ll answer it one other way: if I squeeze orange juice into my iPhone, it will be ruined. It will be ruined because doing that damages the item, not because it violates the manufacturer’s policy and licensing requirements. GM doesn’t issue a license to people who buy their product that it can only be used in certain ways, and then threatens to stop the owners from using the product if they violate the license. Apple does. That’s why Apple can’t compare itself to a car company in this respect. somebody has to be totally in the tank for Apple to seriously consider that a valid comparison. ---
**Author:** ![Grumman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/43a26b/32.png) [@Grumman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Grumman)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2016, 3:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-apple-help-the-government-hack-into-encrypted-devices/746333/523 "2016-03-01T03:48:26Z")
> [@Snowboarder\_Bo](#): > > So to support your contention that Apple controls what people can download, you cite that the federal government explicitly recognized that people can do what they want with their iPhones, including jailbreaking them so they can use apps not approved by Apple? 😕 > > It sure seems as if people are free to do what they wish with their iPhone, including load it with content they get someplace other than Apple. I cite the fact that people _need_ to hack their own phone to use apps not approved by Apple. That Apple was incapable of stopping it in the end does not mean they didn’t create that restriction in the first place. And I do not say that as an argument that Apple has any kind of obligation to write and approve malware that can get past their security, just that their walled garden approach to iOS is different to Microsoft’s approach to Windows on desktops. ---
**Author:** ![Snowboarder\_Bo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/snowboarder_bo/32/229_2.png) [@Snowboarder\_Bo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snowboarder_Bo)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2016, 4:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-apple-help-the-government-hack-into-encrypted-devices/746333/524 "2016-03-01T04:06:36Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > I’ll avoid the multi quote and respond to a few things: installing incompatible machinery has literally nothing to do with the question. You asked that question three different ways, so I’ll answer it one other way: if I squeeze orange juice into my iPhone, it will be ruined. It will be ruined because doing that damages the item, not because it violates the manufacturer’s policy and licensing requirements. > > GM doesn’t issue a license to people who buy their product that it can only be used in certain ways, and then threatens to stop the owners from using the product if they violate the license. Apple does. > > That’s why Apple can’t compare itself to a car company in this respect. somebody has to be totally in the tank for Apple to seriously consider that a valid comparison. You are avoiding the questions, **Ravenman** , by trying to nitpick my analogies as being of poor relatibilty. It’s not a tactic that is working well for you, either. The first bit of Post #509 notes that you moved the goalposts from updating iOS software to a purchase of a new iPhone. I cut you some Slack there and discussed the issue: > [@Snowboarder\_Bo](#): > > If you want to talk about people who purchase a new iPhone with that OS on it, then a) they know what the iOS is when they buy it and b)they are free to jailbreak it and thus not use the iOS that comes with the iPhone. Do you disagree? That’s a very simple question with no automobile analogy in use, yet you avoid answering it. Next was a very direct question, again with no automobile analogy: > [@Snowboarder\_Bo](#): > > So you agree that Apple does not have control over people’s iPhones once they are purchased? You as much as admitted it in the post this question was posed about when you said > [@Ravenman](#): > > Fact: Apple has tried in numerous ways, some of which have been rejected under the law, to exercise a pretty substantial amount of control over iPhones that have been purchased. You note that the law does not allow Apple to control iPhones after purchase, but for some reason cannot bring yourself to admit it? You seem to be doing your best to avoid and evade the direct questions; it’s interesting, then, that you keep trying to engage in _ad hominem_ attacks against me: > [@Ravenman](#): > > Your extraordinary efforts to deny straightforward facts is probably the best proof that Apple is full of crap when it says it has no more control of its products after being purchased than a car maker does after a vehicle has been purchased. > [@Ravenman](#): > > somebody has to be totally in the tank for Apple to seriously consider that a valid comparison. That’s a lame tactic and will get you nowhere in your argument. Your facts here don’t really check out to be facts and when they do check out they don’t support your argument; that’s not a denial on my part, that’s reality. If you like, I’ll drop the automobile analogies (although I disagree that they are inaccurate, obviously). I was just trying to make things relatable and understandable. I’m sorry if you feel that I failed in that attempt; perhaps others find them useful, tho. ---
**Author:** ![Snowboarder\_Bo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/snowboarder_bo/32/229_2.png) [@Snowboarder\_Bo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snowboarder_Bo)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2016, 4:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-apple-help-the-government-hack-into-encrypted-devices/746333/525 "2016-03-01T04:08:25Z")
> [@Grumman](#): > > I cite the fact that people _need_ to hack their own phone to use apps not approved by Apple. That Apple was incapable of stopping it in the end does not mean they didn’t create that restriction in the first place. Less of a restriction than a “recommended practice” tho, isn’t it? ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2016, 4:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-apple-help-the-government-hack-into-encrypted-devices/746333/526 "2016-03-01T04:27:06Z")
I’m with Ravenman regarding the car analogy - it’s bad. It doesn’t clarify the issue, rather it muddies it. And I’m on Apple’s side here. A better analogy would be another OS or some other software. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2016, 7:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-apple-help-the-government-hack-into-encrypted-devices/746333/527 "2016-03-01T07:50:19Z")
I also believe Apple has the better case here. But the car analogy is a misplaced one, and it is unfortunate that Bo has chosen to defend it with such vigor. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2016, 9:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-apple-help-the-government-hack-into-encrypted-devices/746333/528 "2016-03-01T09:01:55Z")
Of interest: No precedent can be set by a magistrate judge’s order. Still, the logic [here (PDF)](https://epic.org/amicus/crypto/apple/Orenstein-Order-Apple-iPhone-02292016.pdf) in a just-issued New York case parallels some of the issues at play in the San Bernadino case under discussion here. > [@](#): > > The government seeks an order requiring Apple, Inc. (“Apple”) to bypass the passcode security on an Apple device. It asserts that such an order will assist in the execution of a search warrant previously issued by this court, and that the All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a) (the “AWA”), empowers the court to grant such relief. Docket Entry (“DE”) 1 (Application). For the reasons set forth below, I conclude that under the circumstances of this case, the government has failed to establish either that the AWA permits the relief it seeks or that, even if such an order is authorized, the discretionary factors I must consider weigh in favor of granting the motion. More specifically, the established rules for interpreting a statute’s text constrain me to reject the government’s interpretation that the AWA empowers a court to grant any relief not outright prohibited by law. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2016, 12:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-apple-help-the-government-hack-into-encrypted-devices/746333/529 "2016-03-01T12:10:08Z")
**Bo** - I have no idea why you’re so interested in that question, but here is my answer: I don’t think it matters at all whether someone buys a new iPhone, updates an old iOS on a phone they own, or if they don’t update the iOS. You’ve tried to move the goalposts from “Apple is so far removed from a particular iPhone as to constitute more or less an innocent bystander” (which is Apple’s claim) as opposed to what you seem to be driving at, which is more like “I’m going to prove **Ravenman** wrong by making him admit that Apple doesn’t exercise full dominion over tens of millions of devices at every waking moment.” Uh, yeah, ok, **Bo**. ---
**Author:** ![Snowboarder\_Bo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/snowboarder_bo/32/229_2.png) [@Snowboarder\_Bo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snowboarder_Bo)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2016, 4:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-apple-help-the-government-hack-into-encrypted-devices/746333/530 "2016-03-01T16:01:32Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > **Bo** - I have no idea why you’re so interested in that question, but here is my answer: I don’t think it matters at all whether someone buys a new iPhone, updates an old iOS on a phone they own, or if they don’t update the iOS. > > You’ve tried to move the goalposts from “Apple is so far removed from a particular iPhone as to constitute more or less an innocent bystander” (which is Apple’s claim) as opposed to what you seem to be driving at, which is more like “I’m going to prove **Ravenman** wrong by making him admit that Apple doesn’t exercise full dominion over tens of millions of devices at every waking moment.” > > Uh, yeah, ok, **Bo**. In other words, you are going to continue to avoid answering the direct questions I asked you. ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2016, 4:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-apple-help-the-government-hack-into-encrypted-devices/746333/531 "2016-03-01T16:24:14Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > No precedent can be set by a magistrate judge’s order. No _controlling_ precedent is set by a magistrate judge’s order. But that’s true for all decisions by trial courts, whether issued by magistrate judges or Article III judges. I’m not sure it’s right to say that no precedent at all is set. Persuasive precedent is a category that is not rigorously defined in American law. It is basically any body of legal reasoning that is persuasive, right? It usually includes foreign law, for example. I think it’s hard to argue that a magistrate judge order does not constitute persuasive precedent, and certainly they are in practice since they are frequently cited on specialized topics, such as e-discovery. But I’m mostly accustomed to the civil context. Is there something different about the criminal context in how magistrate orders are customarily viewed? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2016, 5:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-apple-help-the-government-hack-into-encrypted-devices/746333/532 "2016-03-01T17:39:32Z")
> [@Richard\_Parker](#): > > But I’m mostly accustomed to the civil context. Is there something different about the criminal context in how magistrate orders are customarily viewed? Only that criminal law is strictly construed against the government, and therefore persuasive prior decisions might be less swaying than in the civil context. But your point is correct: I should gave noted that no controlling precedent was created. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2016, 6:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-apple-help-the-government-hack-into-encrypted-devices/746333/533 "2016-03-01T18:44:37Z")
> [@Snowboarder\_Bo](#): > > In other words, you are going to continue to avoid answering the direct questions I asked you. Sigh – let me try again from a different direction, because clearly you’re not understanding my response. Whether someone can load a new operating system onto an iPhone is a technical matter. So far as I know, someone is allowed to try, and whether it works, eh, who knows? I do not know if an iPhone has any hardware features that would impair the odds of success for doing so. Are we clear? What is also clear is that your question essentially treats the iPhone as merely a hardware device. But it is clear that Apple has a different relationship with the software on the device than it does the screen and buttons of the physical device. Since the FBI’s request has primarily to do with the iOS software (which Apple is in no way very far removed from after the consumer buys an iPhone) as contrasted with Apple’s virtually total non-ability to tinker with physical devices that have been bought by the customer, the question you’re asking is irrelevant. ---
**Author:** ![Steve\_MB](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steve_mb/32/5339_2.png) [@Steve\_MB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steve_MB)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2016, 3:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-apple-help-the-government-hack-into-encrypted-devices/746333/534 "2016-03-02T15:55:57Z")
The latest round of [Congressional hearings](http://motherboard.vice.com/read/the-apple-fbi-encryption-hearing-judiciary-committee-fbi-director-james-comey) did not go very well at all for the FBI side of the argument: > [@](#): > > In an unexpectedly adversarial hearing on Tuesday, the members of the House Judiciary Committee grilled FBI Director James Comey on encryption backdoors, privacy, the All Writs Act, and even highly technical details about the iPhone 5c, for over an hour. > > A couple of representatives were openly hostile to Comey, but most launched passive aggressive, loaded questions at the FBI director. Even though the representatives (both Democrats and Republicans) were mostly polite, the tone of the the questioning was a huge departure from how the House Judiciary Committee typically addresses Comey… > > The questions got more hostile. Rep. Conyers asked Comey if the San Bernardino case was an “end-run around this committee” – a loaded question that Comey of course denied… ---
**Author:** ![WordMan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/e8c25b/32.png) [@WordMan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WordMan)\ **Post date:** [March 11, 2016, 3:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-apple-help-the-government-hack-into-encrypted-devices/746333/535 "2016-03-11T15:57:14Z")
That’s the headline on a NYTimes article. [QUOTE=NYTimes] WASHINGTON — The Obama administration argued on Thursday that “no single corporation” — even one as successful as Apple — should be allowed to flout the rule of law by refusing to help the F.B.I. unlock the iPhone used by one of the San Bernardino, Calif., attackers. The administration’s sharp tone in a new court filing drew an angry and emotional rebuke from lawyers for Apple, who accused the government of “a cheap shot” and were particularly upset about what they said was an unfair and inaccurate suggestion that the company has a special relationship with China to protect its corporate interests there. [/QUOTE] and > [@](#): > > In another footnote, the Justice Department’s tone also turned more ominous, suggesting that it might seek access to Apple’s source code and private electronic signatures if the company does not cooperate. That would go beyond what the government has previously requested, which is the company’s help in weakening the iPhone’s defenses rather than any direct access to the technology. A lot of noise. Some ominous signals. ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [March 12, 2016, 4:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-apple-help-the-government-hack-into-encrypted-devices/746333/536 "2016-03-12T04:30:39Z")
How exactly is the government going to force Apple employees to write code? ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [March 12, 2016, 10:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-apple-help-the-government-hack-into-encrypted-devices/746333/537 "2016-03-12T10:54:17Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > How exactly is the government going to force Apple employees to write code? The court order that started this dispute compels Apple to deliver the code. (Or more precisely, to deliver the phone with the one security feature undone.) ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [March 12, 2016, 2:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-apple-help-the-government-hack-into-encrypted-devices/746333/538 "2016-03-12T14:19:14Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > The court order that started this dispute compels Apple to deliver the code. (Or more precisely, to deliver the phone with the one security feature undone.) great. the CEO then tasks employees to do it. They say no. ---
**Author:** ![DrCube](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a3d4f5/32.png) [@DrCube](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrCube)\ **Post date:** [March 12, 2016, 2:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-apple-help-the-government-hack-into-encrypted-devices/746333/539 "2016-03-12T14:23:30Z")
You can’t force people to work. Court order or no. Subpoenaing the source code and/or encryption keys might be the only real hope left for the FBI. But I doubt a court will grant them that, just for the sake of one dead guy’s phone which may or may not have information about some murders that happened in the past. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [March 12, 2016, 2:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-apple-help-the-government-hack-into-encrypted-devices/746333/540 "2016-03-12T14:26:49Z")
No, **Magiver** , you’ve got it totally wrong. The employee has to declare himself a FREEMAN ON THE LAND, and then determine if the court order was issued by a judge with gold fringe on his courtroom flag. If there is gold fringe, then the court order is only valid if the employee is on a ship. If no gold fringe, then the employee has to see whether the court order is directed at Apple or APPLE, one of which is a legal fiction that doesn’t exist. And even if that is in order, the last resort is for the employee to declare in a local newspaper that he is “opting out” of his Federal identity, leaving him only a citizen of the Republic of California. Then the law can’t touch him! [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-apple-help-the-government-hack-into-encrypted-devices/746333.md?page=26) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-apple-help-the-government-hack-into-encrypted-devices/746333.md?page=28)