[dguy123]

Uh but he did. �We reject the notion that tech companies should refuse reasonable, lawful access requests." Problem with that is the ones making the laws are making the requests.

The problem is the perception of what BlackBerry can disclose under those lawful requests. BlackBerry can't disclose message contents, because they don't have them, and can't unlock a phone.

Posted via CB10

[dguy123]

Apple isn't doing that because the court didn't order Apple to retrieve the data, give the data to the government, and then destroy the phone. The court ordered Apple to load a security weakened version of iOS into the device to allow the government to use a brute force hack on the device. That's what Apple was ordered by the court to do and that is what it presumably plans to appeal.

You're right. And that's fine, but they should fight the court order and propose a solution acceptable to all rather than stomping their feet till a higher level court forces them to do something nobody wants.
If they offered a way to access the data they wouldn't have to fight anyone in court.

It'll be interesting to see how this plays out.
But in my mind there IS a simple solution that preserves Apple�s commitment to privacy and the fed's commitment to protect the public.

Posted via CB10

[sorinv]

Apple clearly wants to put itself in a position not to be able to do it.
That is exactly what the New York Times article, which I posted yesterday, explained.

They did it after the Snowden revelations because they did not want to appear as any government's lapdog. Good for them!
US government today, tomorrow Russia, China, etc. There is no way of avoiding that without losing the business in that particular country if they set a precedent.

It's for FBI and the NSA to use their brains paid for with taxpayers' money to do their job and unlock the phone or figure out the dead terrorist's actions and info. They have all his contacts...

My understanding is that neither BlackBerry nor Apple can unlock your phone, whether on BES or not.

If the device is encrypted, as mine's are, both Mac and phone, I cannot read files from one with the other device!
Only I can decrypt them, or someone who accesses my phone password one way or the other.

If I sftp a file or attach it to an email it is automatically decrypted. I do that every day when I transfer files from my Mac or Passport to my work Linux computer across the Pacific. I do it without having to decrypt the files.
But for someone to ftp files from my cellphone, they would need my password.


Now, on my Passport, BlackBerry cannot download a new OS without my permission. If I am dead they will never be able to.

This seems to be the case with this dead terrorist's phone.

However, the FBI and the tech community seems to think that Apple can download a new OS on his phone.

To me that looks like a weakness in the Iphone that a BB10 phone does not have, unless BlackBerry is lying...

http://www.bbc.com/news/technology

[sorinv]

Well, things seem to have changed since 2011. Jobs has died and Cook seems to have steered in a different direction, or else we would not have this fuss.

[Yertie]

It would seem reasonable for the FBI send the phone and then have Apple extract the data on their premises (which is in fact one of the things that was suggested in the original request). However, the problem is this: as soon as Apple does that, it opens itself up to a mountain of requests to unlock other phones. The whole point of implementing encryption from Apple's perspective was to remove themselves as the guardians of peoples' personal data.

Some have speculated that the particular model of iPhone used in this case could potentially be broken into using the FBI's method, but that later models have the timing restriction (number of password attempts) implemented in hardware, so are effectively not vulnerable to this attack.

On the other hand, the newer models have fingerprint sensors. Too bad the terrorist's phone didn't have this particular security innovation. :-)

[Alain_A]

Julian Assange - Anyone own a Blackberry ...iPhone?...well, you're all screwed.

He seems to relate that with Gmail account

[MmmHmm]

I see what the OP is getting at but I don't think it would be a good idea to mandate that businesses must implement MDM just for law enforcement purposes. If a business doesn't think it needs MDM for its business purposes, then forcing it would just add on to the overhead of goods or services without any reason in many cases. How often are there terrorist attacks in which the terrorists used work issued phones? We'd be forcing businesses to take on an added expense (which gets passed to consumers) on the off chance that future terrorists will use work phones.

I don't think laws should be changed to make it easier for law enforcement on these issues, but if the laws are going to be changed, there are more economical means of legislating law enforcement access to phones than requiring all employers to pay for a subscription service even if they don't need it.

[Elephant_Canyon]

but they should fight the court order and propose a solution acceptable to all rather than stomping their feet till a higher level court forces them to do something nobody wants.
If they offered a way to access the data they wouldn't have to fight anyone in court.

Why should Apple do the FBI's job? The court ordered an Unconstitutional solution, and Apple is fighting that order. Apple is not under any obligation to do anything more until the case is settled in the highest court.

But in my mind there IS a simple solution that preserves Apple�s commitment to privacy and the fed's commitment to protect the public.

Maybe in your mind, but objectively that is not that case.

[Dunt Dunt Dunt]

What ever Apple ends up doing, or law makers end up requiring.... I think Apple and BlackBerry will be in the same boat.


Where I do see it as detrimental.... it the fact that how many people taught that the Government needed help to unlock an iPhone?

[JohnGrey]

You're right. And that's fine, but they should fight the court order and propose a solution acceptable to all rather than stomping their feet till a higher level court forces them to do something nobody wants.
If they offered a way to access the data they wouldn't have to fight anyone in court.

It'll be interesting to see how this plays out.
But in my mind there IS a simple solution that preserves Apple’s commitment to privacy and the fed's commitment to protect the public.

Posted via CB10

There is no acceptable solution to the FBI and the federal government in general beyond complete capitulation, now and going forward. The Justice Department has already made this very clear, there are well in excess of 100 phones that they will deliver for this same exploit following this one. The only way that this gets resolved in the interests of liberty is to make the fight very vocal and very public; that's why Apple humoured the DOJ with their closed-door meetings till they got a gun stuck to their heads.

Anyone that argues that the public good should outweigh liberty has no concept of what the public good is. The second we abandon the foundations of our way of life in defence against an external threat, said threat has already won, even if they are killed to the last man.

[JohnGrey]

I have been reading and listening to the news regarding the FBI's request to Apple to create a software solution to unlock an iPhone. One question I haven't heard asked or answered is why can't the employer, that owned this phone unlock it. Though the question has not been asked, the answer is probably because the employer wasn't using an EMM to manage their employee's phone.

I just checked BlackBerry's BES12 cloud service and it looks like an administrator can reset the password on a managed iPhone or Android Phone.

Unlock your device and clear the password - BES12 Self-Service - latest

Could an argument be made by law enforcement that if you as an employer supply a phone to an employee, you must have the ability comply to a court order to provide information from it? I suppose this LAW already exists for regulated industries such as banks, but if it was expanded to include all businesses of a certain size or larger, suddenly the market for EMM would get much larger.

It ultimately depends on how widely the BBRY board allows Chen to open is stupid mouth. If he remains silent and let's it play out, it'll mean very little in the interim, certainly from a business device standpoint. From a consumer standpoint, if Apple fights and wins, and is able to spin that victory into their being the darling of personal digital privacy (which they can do because their marketing and PR is second to none), then I could absolutely see their putting BBRY in the crosshairs, and going for the critical hit.

Yes, that was a Pok�mon reference. Don't judge me.

[FF22]

The angle I am trying to get to is whether this incident will result in new rules regarding employer owned phones. In this case wasn't the phone owned by municipal government? Shouldn't it have been managed so that they could unlock a phone owned by the municipality and provide the data?

I am in Canada and not familiar with how State and Municipal Governments work, but here the phones are managed, even the iPhones. I can see this being made law in the USA and maybe extened to mid size to large businesses.

First, that was probably NOT THE RULE when this phone was provided. Next, how large of an employer will be forced to purchase and manage a system like the one BB does have? I don't think that the BB system is cheap but I don't know that.

But there are probably some who believe ALL OF OUR phones should be similarly managed. He/she has nothing to hide so that Verizon/AT&T/etc should be able to manage/access everything on their phone.

I hate wet grass on slippery slopes..........

[JohnGrey]

No, Apple Has Not Unlocked 70 iPhones For Law Enforcement | TechCrunch

Thank you for pointing this out, even though I remarked as such in the other threat.

[FF22]

Just a thought here folks, I wonder if Apple could unlock the device? Have them do the unlock at their facilities and then give it to the authorities without providing any of the software methods on how it was done?

I know I am the side of privacy and said that in one of my post, but I was thinking about this today and just thought I might be a way to please all parties involved?

But what about those 160 or so phones the NY US Attorney wants unlocked? And how about the 100,000 phones China or Saudi Arabia want unlocked for crimes? And do we need to know that proper search warrants were issued?

[MikeX74]

It ultimately depends on how widely the BBRY board allows Chen to open is stupid mouth. If he remains silent and let's it play out, it'll mean very little in the interim, certainly from a business device standpoint. From a consumer standpoint, if Apple fights and wins, and is able to spin that victory into their being the darling of personal digital privacy (which they can do because their marketing and PR is second to none), then I could absolutely see their putting BBRY in the crosshairs, and going for the critical hit.

Yes, that was a Pok�mon reference. Don't judge me.

It was an appropriate reference, although it wouldn't necessarily take a critical hit to take out BlackBerry, considering the shape that BB's in these days.

[JohnGrey]

Sorry....my bad....

No, quite the contrary! I'm gratified that you went out and investigated rather than just saying 'There, you see! They did it before, why not now!'

That's why I gave the post a like.

[Thud Hardsmack]

Closed for review. Reopened.

[xtremeled]

Just a thought here folks, I wonder if Apple could unlock the device? Have them do the unlock at their facilities and then give it to the authorities without providing any of the software methods on how it was done?

I know I am the side of privacy and said that in one of my post, but I was thinking about this today and just thought I might be a way to please all parties involved?

Right now the US attorney for NY has 160 iPhone's that he'd like unlocked. That's gonna be a problem or at least it should be. It'll never be one phone

[xtremeled]

It brings up the issues of privacy and security to the public. People have a choice. There's more than just Apple and Android.

Posted via CB10

There is? I would assume that if there is you wouldn't have a Blackberry branded Android phone. It seems there really is only 2 maybe 2.5 if you count WP

[xtremeled]

Of course it is about unlocking one phone.

If Apple is worried about a back door getting loose, offer to dump the phone's data at Apple. The feds only get the data. Apple could then destroy the phone if they want.
Apple doesn't have to give the feds a back door, just give them the data.

I find it hard to understand how Apple can't look at the request for what it is and offer compliance in a manner acceptable to Apple while helping to protect public safety. I thought they were supposed to be smart. Guess not.

Posted via CB10

Apple cant destroy the phone. I wont even get into why. They cant

[LazyEvul]

In regards to the whole "do what the FBI requests but keep the tool to yourself" thing, apparently that's actually impossible because of the nature of the US legal system.

What the FBI is asking for here is a forensics tool that would have to be scrutinized at length by the courts anytime it's used, otherwise any evidence it obtains might be deemed inadmissable. Someone who actually works in digital forensics offers a really good explanation here: http://www.zdziarski.com/blog/?p=5645

The burden on Apple here is actually pretty substantial as a result. It seems almost laughable for the court to argue otherwise. And the tool will have to go through extensive third-party scrutiny.

[TX Jedi]

Interesting and funny development

http://abcnews.go.com/US/san-bernard...ry?id=37066070

Posted via CB10

[sorinv]

Yep, as we know from the fall of communism, incompetence and stupidity trumps any security agency, capitalist or communist...

[Thud Hardsmack]

Interesting and funny development

San Bernardino Shooter's iCloud Password Changed While iPhone was in Government Possession - ABC News

Posted via CB10

I like how Mr Vance says he has all these iPhones that need unlocking, and the video cuts to what appears to be quite a few Samsung-designed devices, what with that oblong home button and camera centered in the back. Either he has no clue what's what, or the media doesn't. Or possibly both.

[anon(9607753)]

What a pathetic masquerade this is by Apple...to hide behind the guise of privacy to defend it's bottom line. Yes Tim Cook, first CEO to oversee a drop in iPhone sales since it's inception, there are higher principals at stake in the civilized world than protecting Apple's share value and defending iPhone encryption from the 'big government' boogie monster.

Posted via CB10