Discovery is important for prosecution. Implications is a mysterious word. What kind of implications are there?
The FISA Court is well established. This stance by Mr. Cook is strange and unwanted. When do Americans and the country's national security take an important place in the world of telecommunications.
I don't see why opening a locked cell phone is a threat to that community. If there is ever a problem beyond opening this phone it is reasons to sue the federal government. The court order is to open one phone, not an entire industry.
I think Apple is making a mountain out of a mole hill, but, in the USA today that is the fashion. Apple is opening itself up for confiscation of it's records and damage to it's reputation. Once the Apple records are removed by the US Government there is definitely no containing the ability of any search. Cooperating and allowing this phone to be opened is far better for the status of the companies exclusive security system and it's customers.
Dangerous? Define dangerous.
Apple can't obtain the password into the phone? Just give them the password. Providing the password is the reasonable thing to do and doesn't require handing over the encryption technology. Providing the pass word to open the phone is defensible in court. Once the password is provided the FBI has no right to demand the encryption technology and is overreaching. Offer to open the phone without compromising it's customer model.
To oppose the court is not dangerous, but, disastrous.
February 16, 2016
By Charlie Savage
Washington — A newly declassified report (click here) by the National Security Agency’s inspector general suggests that the government is receiving far less data from Americans’ international Internet communications than privacy advocates have long suspected.
The report indicates that when the N.S.A. conducts Internet surveillance under the FISA Amendments Act, companies that operate the Internet are probably turning over just emails to, from or about the N.S.A.’s foreign targets — not all the data crossing their switches, as the critics had presumed.
The theory that the government is rooting through vast amounts of data for its targets’ messages has been at the heart of several lawsuits challenging such surveillance as violating the Fourth Amendment....
The court is looking for a way to secure information the FBI needs, not the surrender of a company to government scrutiny into the future. This issue can be contained by opening ONE PHONE. If the FBI is pushing for relinquishing the technology it is definitely an action that is a STRATEGY against the industry and not a reason to obtain valuable information within the phone. A strategy is a reason to refuse cooperation and I would hope a court would uphold that fact as a government out of control, but, to not open ONE PHONE will only bring a greater compromise to the iPhone market.
February 17, 2016
By Katie Brenner and Eric Lichtblau
...In his statement, Mr. Cook called the court order an “unprecedented step” by the federal government. “We oppose this order, which has implications far beyond the legal case at hand,” he wrote.
The Justice Department did not immediately respond publicly to Apple’s resistance.
The F.B.I. said that its experts had been unable to access data on Mr. Farook’s iPhone, and that only Apple could bypass its security features. F.B.I. experts have said they risk losing the data permanently after 10 failed attempts to enter the password because of the phone’s security features.
The Justice Department had secured a search warrant for the phone, owned by Mr. Farook’s former employer, the San Bernardino County Department of Public Health, which consented to the search.
Because Apple declined to voluntarily provide, in essence, the “keys” to its encryption technology, federal prosecutors said they saw little choice but to get a judge to compel Apple’s assistance.
Mr. Cook said the order amounted to creating a “back door” to bypass Apple’s strong encryption standards — “something we simply do not have, and something we consider too dangerous to create.”
In 2014, Apple and Google — whose operating systems are used in 96 percent of smartphones worldwide — announced that they had re-engineered their software with “full disk” encryption, and could no longer unlock their own products as a result....
The FISA Court is well established. This stance by Mr. Cook is strange and unwanted. When do Americans and the country's national security take an important place in the world of telecommunications.
I don't see why opening a locked cell phone is a threat to that community. If there is ever a problem beyond opening this phone it is reasons to sue the federal government. The court order is to open one phone, not an entire industry.
I think Apple is making a mountain out of a mole hill, but, in the USA today that is the fashion. Apple is opening itself up for confiscation of it's records and damage to it's reputation. Once the Apple records are removed by the US Government there is definitely no containing the ability of any search. Cooperating and allowing this phone to be opened is far better for the status of the companies exclusive security system and it's customers.
Dangerous? Define dangerous.
Apple can't obtain the password into the phone? Just give them the password. Providing the password is the reasonable thing to do and doesn't require handing over the encryption technology. Providing the pass word to open the phone is defensible in court. Once the password is provided the FBI has no right to demand the encryption technology and is overreaching. Offer to open the phone without compromising it's customer model.
To oppose the court is not dangerous, but, disastrous.
February 16, 2016
By Charlie Savage
Washington — A newly declassified report (click here) by the National Security Agency’s inspector general suggests that the government is receiving far less data from Americans’ international Internet communications than privacy advocates have long suspected.
The report indicates that when the N.S.A. conducts Internet surveillance under the FISA Amendments Act, companies that operate the Internet are probably turning over just emails to, from or about the N.S.A.’s foreign targets — not all the data crossing their switches, as the critics had presumed.
The theory that the government is rooting through vast amounts of data for its targets’ messages has been at the heart of several lawsuits challenging such surveillance as violating the Fourth Amendment....
The court is looking for a way to secure information the FBI needs, not the surrender of a company to government scrutiny into the future. This issue can be contained by opening ONE PHONE. If the FBI is pushing for relinquishing the technology it is definitely an action that is a STRATEGY against the industry and not a reason to obtain valuable information within the phone. A strategy is a reason to refuse cooperation and I would hope a court would uphold that fact as a government out of control, but, to not open ONE PHONE will only bring a greater compromise to the iPhone market.
February 17, 2016
By Katie Brenner and Eric Lichtblau
...In his statement, Mr. Cook called the court order an “unprecedented step” by the federal government. “We oppose this order, which has implications far beyond the legal case at hand,” he wrote.
The Justice Department did not immediately respond publicly to Apple’s resistance.
The F.B.I. said that its experts had been unable to access data on Mr. Farook’s iPhone, and that only Apple could bypass its security features. F.B.I. experts have said they risk losing the data permanently after 10 failed attempts to enter the password because of the phone’s security features.
The Justice Department had secured a search warrant for the phone, owned by Mr. Farook’s former employer, the San Bernardino County Department of Public Health, which consented to the search.
Because Apple declined to voluntarily provide, in essence, the “keys” to its encryption technology, federal prosecutors said they saw little choice but to get a judge to compel Apple’s assistance.
Mr. Cook said the order amounted to creating a “back door” to bypass Apple’s strong encryption standards — “something we simply do not have, and something we consider too dangerous to create.”
In 2014, Apple and Google — whose operating systems are used in 96 percent of smartphones worldwide — announced that they had re-engineered their software with “full disk” encryption, and could no longer unlock their own products as a result....
