You described Apple’s effort in complying with this as:
How can something that isn’t difficult and easy in the scheme of things be an undue burden?
As for the trade secret objection, as far as I can tell Apple isn’t required to disclose anything. What trade secret do you think they will be forced to reveal?
Yes, the government can indeed, if it wishes, by law compel companies to do more than simply provide access. I have no argument at all with that principle.
So if Congress were to pass a law mandating that phone manufacturers “provide technical assistance so that data stored on the phone can be decrypted,” then Apple would have to comply, just like Verizon has to comply with the Wiretap Act.
But here, there is no such law. The government is using a common law writ, a subpoena duces tecum, to try to get the cooperation they want. There is no rule in the subpoena duces tecum that mandates Apple provide technical assistance from coders to write a new application to decrypt data. A subpoena requires a party holding documents or information to produce those documents.
By requiring a type of work that is different than simply supplying existing information.
The successful method of modifying an iPhone to allow brute-force hacking.
From a PR perspective, if Apple said that it was helping by spinning out an OS load that would work on that one phone only and all it would do is disable the self-destruct, and emphasizes that the data encryption is not being compromised, would that hurt them?
I think that would be fine with me, and I’m somewhat of a privacy/security nut.
I believe they can. I think it’s clear that the government can make people act. And on any reasonable objection they’ll demand the plans for the lock, which is what will happen to Apple if they don’t comply here.
Sure. A demand for the lock plans is a perfectly legitimate subpoena request.
But your belief is wrong: they can demand all the plans in the lockmaker’s cabinet but cannot compel him to make a key – at least, not in the context of a subpoena.
What if making the key requires entering a code into the key making machine? Again, it doesn’t really matter because they can subpoena the code and seize the machine. The feds are being nice to Apple by giving them the chance to cooperate. If Apple wants to wait while the government gets a bigger boat that’s their problem.
What has the government done to earn that trust? Let me know when Apple’s agents shoot minorities in the back, plant evidence, accumulate 20 trillion in debt, etc.
The lessons of concentrated state power are current events and history. Not sci-fi.
Nice to see someone else who takes the lessons of the 18th, 19th, and especially 20th century to heart.
The FBI has multiple motives. One is to force manufacturers to include back doors. This incident may have political motives.
It has maintained the safety and prosperity of this nation and its people for nearly 250 years.
Apple, on the other hand, is an organization that exists for the purpose of enriching its shareholders by exploiting Third World labor and enabling terrorists, drug lords, and human traffickers to commit their deeds untraceably.
The lessons of the 18th, 19th, and 20th centuries are that unchecked capitalism is harmful to the people, the economy, and the planet itself, and that concentrated state power is the only force powerful enough to keep corporations in check and ensure that their enterprises serve the public good.
Why does that make that make it an undue burden?
Apple isn’t required to disclose their method.
When Bill Gates and Walt Disney head organizations that kill 1/1000th of the people that Stalin, Hitler, Mao etc have had killed by their governments I will worry about scary old Hershy and PepsiCo. When Apple opens Gitmo and waterboards people, seizes cash and vehicles with no warrant, sells firearms to cartels, etc I’ll worry about Apple more so than the government.
What position of authority do Stalin, Hitler, and Mao hold in the FBI?
How about forced child labor?
None. That’s irrelevant. What’s relevant is the nature of blindly trusting and empowering an institution that has killed more people than any other. Would you trust the people who work in government to ALL your information?
Cite that the US government has “killed more people than any other” organization to ever exist?
Yes.
Would you trust Apple to all of yours? I’m guessing you already do.
Apple does not have your personal information; that has been pointed out several times in this thread. Here; I’ll cite it again:
Apple does not have and does not want your personal information.
Government is the institution to worry about. Just like you used the word corporations.
I don’t trust anyone to all my information.
It’s funny that you trust a government that wrongfully imprisons, seizes property, tortures, assassinates, and executes people. You believe police are your friend? You going to refuse counsel if you are ever arrested or detained? The police care about you and are working for your best interests. Tell me why you’d ever want an attorney? Or a jury trial.
That about seems incorrect to me. The proper analogue would be requiring a safe maker to disable the bomb inside the safe that explodes when the lock is tampered with. Apple is essentially being asked to disable a self-destruct mechanism, not to open the phone. I think comparing it to a key is wrong because it implies that they are granting access to an object when they aren’t in actuality doing that.
I would not believe that they don’t want it. I believe they’ve made the calculation that the value of the good will with strong privacy is sufficient.
To be fair, how do you know that? Just because Tim Cook says they don’t? And what are the limits of personal information? Apple certainly could know where I go, who I call, who my contacts are, what I take pictures of, etc.
They have your name and address. They have your billing information. Chances are they have your SSN and access to your credit record. They know where you are at any given moment of the day. They have records of every phone call and text message you send or receive.
They probably know more about you than the government does.
Are you OK with that?