Looks like a couple of legislators in California and New York are trying to ban the sale of phones with data encryption that will lock out law enforcement.
If this becomes a thing it could be a bigger problem for Apple by far than the need to decrypt by court order.
On the other hand there is a proposal to* prohibit* companies to do so.
It also seems that the Icloud password was changed by the FBI (from Apple’s memorandum to to Court) :
I think Apple should try to call the government’s bluff on this. Say they’ll unlock the phone, but to prevent undermining the security of its devices, the government should give Apple the phone, let them unlock it, and then allow Apple to give the relevant information to the FBI without handing over the phone so that the government never gets its hands on the technology developed.
Apple argues that the situation doesn’t meet the New York Telephone test and violates the first and fifth amendments. The New York Telephone test first:
The first part of the test is how remote or connected Apple is to the case. They say this:
Which is totally false. As noted before, Apple exercises a great deal of control over the iPhone. It’s not in the same realm as GM selling a car. I can’t see how Apple wins here, so moving on.
The second part is that it would impose an undue burden on Apple. They say that it will take 6-10 employees 2-4 weeks to accomplish what the FBI wants. That’s not an undue burden on a company the size of Apple. They also say that doing this will require them to testify in court cases and impose a burden that way. Unfortunately, for them, they torpedo their own argument by noting:
If they’ve done it thousands of times for years, why is it suddenly now such a burden? If they maintained software to unlock previous versions of iOS, why is it now too dangerous to create software to unlock the current version of iOS?
Apple also says this would create a dangerous precedent:
But these obviously fail the first part of the New York Telephone test. A random pharmaceutical company has no relation to a random execution, and therefore can not be compelled to assist. Same logic applies for the rest of their examples.
The last part of the test is that there is no other way to execute the warrant without compelling the third party. I don’t think Apple will win on this point, and their argument is so weak it’s not worth rebutting.
The First/Fifth amendment arguments are compelling, and no doubt Apple has rights under these. However, these rights aren’t absolute and the test in New York Telephone determines when the government can abridge those rights.
Because now the phones have better security that is impervious to the haquer-d00d-level tools that unlocked the older versions. This question is equivalent to the suggestion that somebody who occasionally helps out a down-on-his-luck friend is somehow being hypocritical if he balks at letting the friend move in rent-free.
It’s clear from the context (and from your very own comment quoted above) that the analogy is to a pharmaceutical company that formerly provided execution drugs but has ceased to do so. Such a company can hardly be said to have “no relation” to any execution(s) put on hold by its refusal.
Sheeeesh. :rolleyes:
I can just imagine representatives from the evil gang of six waiting in Tim Cook’s outer office for their appointment to discuss terms for “their” version of the hack-immune firmware.
But then again, I often cannot decide whether it is the Government or Corporate America I hate the most. I suppose stranger things have happened. 
In light of the close cooperation, I would try to be equitable.
I’ll challenge you on this point. Exactly what control does Apple exercise over an iPhone once it is sold to a customer?
It owns the OS, for one thing. The company makes quite a bit production out of forbidding users from doing things to the iPhone that Apple doesn’t want to have happen.
How is that exercising control over the iPhone? Is GM exercising control over a car buy only installing an engine that runs on gasoline?
Wouldn’t this be true for any non-open source software? I can’t modify the Windows OS but it’s a stretch to say that Microsoft exercises control over my home computer.
As I understand it, Apple does not allow you to install anything on your iPhone without their permission. Bypassing that restriction is what Jailbreaking is.
Well, technically yes. The two corporations are exercising roughly equal controls over the products they sell. If anything, the current generation of cars, with all sorts of control chips protected from end-user or non-licensed-garage access, might represent somewhat greater control.
Only inasmuch as you stay with iOS as delivered. It’s not like Tim Cook sends out repo men to snatch your iPhone back if you jailbreak it. if you ask for tech support they’ll just tell you to pound sand.
I’m 100% on Apple’s side on this one.
That isn’t my understanding; do you have a cite you can offer for whatever gave you that understanding?
How does that comparison hold for simple Apps? Adobe Professional for example. Adobe controls the source code, but I can use it for reading and creating documents, including encrypted documents. Does that mean Adobe is exercising control? I don’t think so.
You didn’t answer the question I posed; you brought more technology into the discussion seemingly to obscure the point being made. Thankfully, it doesn’t obscure anything.
Let’s say you bought a car with those “control chips” in it. Once you have possession of the car, how is GM exercising control over it?
I’ll save you time and provide the answer: they are not exercising any control over it.
Anymore than any other manufacturer is exercising control over a product by making the product in the first place. A typewriter manufacturer isn’t “exercising control” over their product by only providing keys marked in the English alphabet; a book publisher isn’t “exercising control” over their books by only printing in a certain language; etc.
Once you have the product in hand, it is yours to do what you wish with it. The fact that the product may not function as intended after you alter it is not evidence of the manufacturer “exercising control” over the product, it is simply one foreseeable outcome of altering the product from the manufacturer’s specifications.
In iOS7 and earlier, they used an encryption that Apple could access. With iOS8, there are now TWO levels of protection: the new unbreakable encryption (as long as no one can guess your passcode), and the self-destruct feature. With the self-destruct feature, Apple has access to this, just like they did with helping the FBI pre-iOS8.
I don’t really see an especially significant difference between Apple breaking into a pre-iOS8 phone and them disabling the self-destruct feature of a post-iOS8 phone. There is the idea that the iOS8 modification requires them to perform a creative act, so they may be able to get by on that technicality.
Apple did its customers a great service by making the encryption on iOS8 unbreakable with a good password, meaning that a user can have good security that’s completely in his own hands to control and he doesn’t have to depend on anyone else helping him keep his data private. But the self-destruct feature is something else, and is more akin to the pre-iOS8 access that Apple willingly went along with.
Apple tried and failed to have jailbreaking treated as a crime under US law. That they failed to escalate to robbery to enforce their will does not mean they do not forbid it to the best of their ability.