TE
TechEcho
Home24h TopNewestBestAskShowJobs
GitHubTwitter
Home

TechEcho

A tech news platform built with Next.js, providing global tech news and discussions.

GitHubTwitter

Home

HomeNewestBestAskShowJobs

Resources

HackerNews APIOriginal HackerNewsNext.js

© 2025 TechEcho. All rights reserved.

Apple Has Not Unlocked 70 iPhones for Law Enforcement

137 pointsby _isusover 9 years ago

8 comments

WatchDogover 9 years ago
Not sure if this has been discussed, but it seems that the only reason this is an issue is because Apple has the ability to install new software on a locked device.<p>Couldn’t Apple simply remove the ability for a software update to take place without the device being unlocked or wiped?<p>Obviously this wouldn’t apply retroactively to old IOS versions, but it would be consistent with their change in policy from IOS 7 to 8.
评论 #11131079 未加载
评论 #11133538 未加载
评论 #11133461 未加载
sandworm101over 9 years ago
&gt;&gt;&gt; Apple also argues that since its reputation is based on security and privacy, complying with the court’s demands based on an expanded application of a 200-year-old law could put it at risk of tarnishing that reputation.<p>One one hand, a corporate reputation. On the other, people from the FBI saying they need access to prevent terrorist attacks. There are many arguments to be made. This is not the winner.
评论 #11131361 未加载
评论 #11132252 未加载
评论 #11131285 未加载
Overtonwindowover 9 years ago
I wonder what Apple&#x27;s PR machine is doing on this front to support their position. The more articles I see about what Apple can, cannot, will not, or could not do, makes me suspect Apple&#x27;s PR team is behind some of those articles.
dclowd9901over 9 years ago
I get so sick of this. Whenever some sort of dictatorial measure is taken or proposed, the go-to cleanup is &quot;this is the norm, this is status quo, nothing to see here.&quot;<p>We saw it all over the fucking Bush campaign when special rendition reports and waterboarding shit was coming out. We even saw Bush (probably Cheney) writing his stupid little memos which he tried to mold into executive orders, absolving the CIA of torture.<p>Does anyone actually buy this fucking defense?
haugetover 9 years ago
Excuse my ignorance, but is Apple&#x27;s encryption in iOS 9 devices significantly stronger than any of the newest Android devices? Also, are there any precedents of any government demanding the unlocking of any Android phones?
评论 #11134007 未加载
weinzierlover 9 years ago
This is interesting and new to me:<p><pre><code> &gt; For iOS devices running iOS versions earlier than &gt; iOS 8.0 [..] &gt; Please note the only categories of user generated &gt; active files that can be provided to law enforcement [..] are: &gt; SMS, iMessage, MMS, photos, videos, contact, audio recording, and &gt; call history. &gt; Apple cannot provide: email, calendar entries, or any third-party &gt; app data. </code></pre> What is the difference between the two categories? Are email and calendar entries encrypted on iOS7 and below?
satyajeet23over 9 years ago
If it&#x27;s about Apple, some key detail will always get jacked up by a journalist like Shane Harris of &#x27;the daily beast&#x27;, trying to translate it for the public.<p>Report is extremely misleading and an example of bad journalism.
wildmusingsover 9 years ago
TLDR for what follows: Mandated backdoors must be a red line, but this is not a request for a backdoor and actually seems pretty reasonable. Trying to argue that the tech industry shouldn&#x27;t help, even in this case, is not only the wrong position in my book, but a sure way to lose the bigger debate.<p>My views on the general encryption controversy are:<p>1. Everyone must be free to make their technology as secure as they possibly can. There can be no mandated weakening of security, back-doors, or other requirements to make the information more easily accessible by law enforcement. On newer iPhones, Apple has patched up the flaw that the FBI wants their help with exploiting. They must continue to be allowed to do that.<p>2. The government must be able to demand, with a court order predicated on probable cause, that companies provide any and all information that they have that could be useful in circumventing their security features. This can be everything from technical specifications and threat-model analyses, to lists of unpatched vulnerabilities and code-signing keys.<p>3. It seems to me that American companies have a moral obligation that goes beyond the legal obligations in point #2. They should be actively assisting the government in recovering information, especially when concerning issues of national security. In extreme circumstances, like total war, this should definitely be legally mandated. I&#x27;m undecided as to what the policy should be generally. On a practical level, it&#x27;s probably not feasible for the government to, e.g. start hacking around the iOS codebase themselves, so just information might not be enough.<p>I&#x27;m not too troubled by this court order, especially given the particular circumstances. The right to make products as secure as you can, even from yourself and the government, is what&#x27;s really important to defend.<p>Trying to argue that the tech industry shouldn&#x27;t help, even in this case, is not only the wrong position in my book, but a sure way to lose the bigger debate.<p>Disclaimer: These are obviously my own personal views and nothing else. They do not necessarily reflect the opinions, policies, or practices of anyone but myself.
评论 #11131844 未加载
评论 #11131473 未加载
评论 #11131697 未加载
评论 #11131539 未加载