A real world example is RIM several years ago. They've proven that they could neuter Blackberry security for BIS users, and dictatorship after dictatorship lined up to demand to get the same access, dangling "ban on sales" as the carrot to make it happen

I have nothing against profits and them trying to protect them, I have an issue with them dressing it up as something else. I do not have a favourite mobile OS, I have a least hated one, which is Windows Phone 8.1, but I may switch if MS do not get their shit together with Windows 10 Mobile.

This sums up the issue quite well:

http://s19.postimg.org/unlv62vgz/image.jpg

I hope Apple holds strong, their security is one of their shining lights.

The rest of industry is coming out officially behind Apple as well.


http://recode.net/2016/02/25/google-...g-in-fbi-case/

http://m.theinquirer.net/inquirer/ne...not-eat-a-shoe

This whole story line has sat uncomfortable with me, so I tended to mainly stay away.
It is plain weird, though I think I did suggest it might just be a case of security departments not communicating !

If I remember rightly it was because the terrorist gunmen who shot many in the streets in India all used Blackberry messenger, which the government couldn't decrypt or monitor. I believe that made terrorist tracking extremely difficult. If they had used plain SMS they may have been stopped or tracked more easily.

The issue is that encryption is just maths and anyone can do it, terrorists (like other serious criminals) don't stick to the rules and laws and would just use black market encryption apps.

The tech companies are full of intelligent IT people as well as finance people, and many of the employees understand a push the message about people's right to privacy. That doesn't necessarily mean you've done anything wrong, just that you don't want to share all of your information with all people. The NSA get very upset when people leak their data... why? because they want to keep it private, there's some irony there which implies that a citizen of the state is not allowed to also keep things private.

There is a compromise which has to be made somewhere I guess, but it must not fundamentally weaken our security for everyone and potentially allow criminals to hack our devices etc.

Once you enable this for the US, China will want it, India will want it and before you know it Apple will be mass unlocking devices across the world for law enforcement, some of those 'crimes' will be very different.

Apple know that law enforcement already obtain a lot of information via other means, including technology backdoors and don't necessarily need Apple to come along and break into every iPhone the FBI wants them too, and then by extension every other law enforcement agency throughout the world.

It is a massively complex issue.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MG0bAaK7p9s

Very hard to take Mcafee seriously since his legendary youtube posting a few years ago... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bKgf5PaBzyg

I had been following the response from Silicon Valley, more are expected to follow. I would be too surprised if IBM and Oracle followed suit. As you have stated the implications are massive, I think all tech companies need to come out in support of Apple, they maybe business rivals, the implications are massive.

What I do find rather strange, why do they need it to access text messages? As far as Snowden leaked, NSA and other agencies had access to that data already, not forgetting using the microphones to listen into coversations.

Whats stupid about the whole thing, Apple has assisted law enforcement in the past. When a device was locked via pin code they had a way to get round that. Yet some daft bastard thought it was a good idea to try it themselves only to lock it and destroy information held on the device.

At what point does it become Apple's responsibility? It wasn't Cupertino's fault that someone other than them bricked the phone. I get the feeling there are more sinister causes at work, some of this may even be the blow back from Snowden's tell all.

Isn't the suspect dead anyway, yes I suppose he might lead them to other people but as you say the powers of the NSA are already quite vast. There are over 100 requests in Apple's backlog for phones that need decrypting, but they have now stopped doing them., this FBI case is only one of the requests.

"John McAfee has lived up to his word and managed to unlock an iPhone."

"The presidential candidate and FBI-taunting antivirus pioneer reckons that any hacker or software and hardware engineer could pull off the same trick. He used a disassembler and looked for evidence of the log-in, and claimed that it took only 30 mins."

"He said that he has not been approached by the FBI but would gladly walk them through the procedure."

Of course it was a totally impartial test with no chance he actually knew the password before he started?

Reading articles on him, the guy is a category A fruit loop who put so much coke up his nose I'm surprised he still knows his own name...

Red herring - we can't as a society retain our freedom if it involves surrendering our freedom.

Put it this way - if the only way to catch a serial sex attacker was for the authorities to install cameras in each and every room in each and every home for surveillance - would you be OK with that too?

Point is, no matter what the potential benefit might be, there are still lines that shouldn't be crossed. And giving up everyone's privacy on their phones crosses that line IMO.

CCTV cameras everywhere are already quite invasive and nobody cares. I think it was so with encryption, too, quite a few security holes were plugged lately. I would not be surprised if they were being exploited by various agencies, which is not possible anymore, so there's more pressure on manufacturers.

Oh. So you think "nobody would care" about having CCTV cameras in every room in their own home?

I can't imagine for one second that would be the case.

The other extreme is do what Amazon have done and just totally get rid of encryption.

http://www.theverge.com/2016/3/3/111...emoved-upgrade

No, what I am saying for me the status quo is already too much. What can I do about it? Nothing. It would be the same if there were an official way to unlock the phones. I don't think people would run away. One gets told from all sides already that they have nothing to worry about if they had done nothing wrong, this goes in the same direction.

Ah, OK.

It would be interesting to know what jjesso123 would think about CCTV in every home.

I don't think the issue is really about not having something to hide - its more that if Apple build in a backdoor to iOS, then that would potentially make people's data less secure, and open to the possibility of being hacked and stolen.

Well it seems like this is bigger than we thought

http://www.macrumors.com/2016/03/04/...laim-attorney/

The phone might contain a 'dormant cyber pathogen'.

So the FBI need to break into it at all costs

Bizarre. I sounds like they just made that up!

It appears almost the entire industry is now behind Apple.


All are actually links at:
http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2016...le.html#labnol

F**K ME!!!

I knew some of the big boys were coming out, however this is unprecedented!

WOW just WOW.

Seeing as virtually every bit of Silicon Valley is filing amicus briefs with the court this is going to go on for a long while yet. May even go all the way to the SCOTUS.

I was reading some anecdotal remarks suggesting the FBI is trying to move the case to another part of the country where courts are more sympathetic to their cause.

I am genuinely astonished how quickly SV have come to rally around Apple.

I don't think anyone wants a precedent set or expectation that manufacturers are forced to weaken devices when law enforcement request it. If this were to be forced then basically there would be all sorts of passcode security which is deliberately weakened.

We know what happens when they do this, the 'bad guys' continue as normal as if they're really bad they don't abide by the rules and find other ways, whilst ordinary people are left with weaker devices which becomes a risk. The owner of this phone the FBI want access to is DEAD and cannot face any further charges.

We're already seeing criminals hacking Natwest customers bank accounts by getting UK mobile networks to port your number on to the criminal's sim so that they can access the money transfer services on your account and wipe it out. Weakening security of phone passcodes is not the answer, especially now it is becoming some people's wallet.

Whilst I think some of what you state is at the extreme end of the arguement, your broader point holds weight. Apple when questioned by a Senate Committee last week or so, came out stating there is more information on your mobile than there is in the rest of your house. This inferring your phone being opened up is more dangerous than someone stealing from you home.

The US has 17 different intelligence agencies (depending on whose inpterpretation you believe). We have seen the leaks from Snowdon, its a known fact now they are able to retrieve information from the phone and also able to listen in remotely.

So I just question why they need Apple to open up a backdoor?

These same agencies hacked into the phones, laptops and computers of allies and partners. So its beyond comprehension that not one of those intelligence agencies aren't able to retrieve the information remotely. I believe there is a more broader law compared to the one here which requires service providers keep hold of communication for a number of years, I think there is more to this than meets the eye if I'm honest.

The conspiracy theorist in tells me there are sinister forces at work