http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-35704103

Nice to see it’s moving towards not “should Apple do this” to one where privacy and the right to protect your own data from prying eyes is debated. It’s a much wider issue than one phone., If Apple buckle, then any phone maker will be expected to provide backdoors. Indeed, any OS with encryption will.

Because phones are not arseholes. It appears sometimes Congressmen are though.

The question is not whether the government can look at people's data - they can do that with a warrant. In fact in this case they have and Apple has provided all the data they have access to that is on the phone, in the form of a cloud backup. The question is whether the government can force a company to make it's product less secure to allow for government access to be easier (or in this particular case, be less of a problem when the government itself screws up and effectively locks the phone).

Now, 'yes' is a valid answer to that question. But there are consequences to that decision. Ignoring those consequences seems a bad idea.

Jon

I wonder how many congressmen would scream blue murder if they were detained in a foreign country (say China) and the government declared them a terrorist and demanded Apple unlock their phone.
If Apple give in to the US government then any government can legitimately demand the same level of access in the interest of 'national security'.

To be fair, the request the FBI have made includes sending the phone to Apple to perform the procedure on. And the tinkered with OS image Apple would be putting on the phone would be cryptographically signed by Apple.

But this is kind of a manhattan project thing. Once they make the bomb, the bomb can't be unmade. Everyone will know they have it - and 'it' in this case is just a file. Every intelligence agency and criminal organisation in the world will be after it. All it needs is the right person at Apple to be got at in whatever way and once the thing is out in the wild..

There are rumours Apple are redesigning the next version of the OS so there is literally no logical way to 'break' the phone if it's properly secured and you don't have the fingerprint of the person who owns it. That's perfectly legal for them to do, but it would piss the FBI off no end.

Jon

Amazon removes encryption from FireOS. http://www.alphr.com/security/1002865/w ... ign=buffer

At least a dozen people will be affected by this news.

What a pack of dicks.

Meanwhile, French law looks like it will change to fine technology companies who don't provided unencrypted data when required by the security forces. http://www.theverge.com/2016/3/4/111600 ... rorism-law

Would be interesting to apply that to the case in question - Apple have provided all the data they have access to by normal means (i.e. the cloud backup of the phone). The case is not about Apple refusing to give the FBI the data they actually have a copy of and never has been. It is about the FBI having the only copy of a piece/pieces of data (whatever is currently only on the actual phone) and them trying to force Apple to do some new stuff to get access to the phone, stuff which Apple think is a very bad idea and will also negate something they see as a competitive advantage. The two things are not the same thing at all in legal terms.

Note the FBI can't even say what the data is that's on the phone they want access to. They don't in fact even know if there's anything useful on there at all and have admitted as much. They want access to the phone on the off chance there's something useful on there. In fact, nobody can even explain why they need the data on the phone, because it's not as if they actually have to prosecute the perpetrators do they?

This is not about a government agency saying to a company 'give us a copy of the data person X has stored on your systems'. This is about a government agency saying to a company 'person X has stored data securely on a device made by your company. Help us to break the security you built for the device'. There are grave and very worrying implications in acceding to the second request.

This is a government agency wanting to be able to unlock data on any encrypted device, but disguising that need by appearing to only want to do it once. It's a long, long reach being attempted here. The head of the FBI has practically admitted that (as if this wasn't patently obvious already).

Amazon drops encryption on its tablets... but will bring it back | TechRadar
http://www.techradar.com/news/mobile-co ... ck-1316319



'Oh, it was gonna make us look bad and everything.'

25 years in prison if you do not comply.
make the system so it can only to be accessed by the individual none other. not even the makers of the phone or system ...

Is Window a common name somewhere outside of America or something? Over here he'd be called Windy as in 'open that windy, it stinks in here' lol

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-35868322

Can't help thinking they've had this in the wings the whole time, the intention being to set a precedent. Like just about every piece of 'security' legislation across the world these days, it's nothing but security for previous and ongoing illegal activity by government agencies.