I'm not so sure that Apple wasn't aware and perhaps even looking for a battle with the {FBI,NSA,CIA,...} when they added encryption. You don't start designing a system that makes you incapable of fulfilling a warrant without expecting and indeed preparing for those battles in the future.<p>In a way with things like NSL's and Secret warrants and courts the US had backed companies like Apple and Google into a wall. Post Snowden everyone knows that the Government can get information about you from them without your knowledge and you will have no recourse. It's a PR battle those companies can't win. So they did an end run. Go ahead and get your secret warrants and send those NSL's it's physically impossible for us to get you the information you want.<p>It forced this whole thing out into open. I can't help but think this sort of legal battle is both expected and in some cases desired by the likes of Apple and Google. They finally get to fight these battles out in the open and any loss of privacy can be blamed on the government rather than the company. It's a kind of PR win whether they win the court case or not.<p>Of course there is still the problem of not looking pro-terrorist in the process which is another risk to factor in. But at least it's a public debate rather than a private one now.
> Apple has been excoriated by presidential candidates, and backed into the tightest of corners by the FBI: the moral case for refusing to hack into a terrorist’s phone is hard to make – particularly in the US over an Isis-inspired attack during an election year.<p>I can't believe The Guardian is sounding so hostile to Apple in this context. Don't they understand the consequences?!
You can almost hear the Guardian's business leader writers rubbing their hands at the prospect. Which is as shameful and shortsighted as it is atypical for the Guardian. I would guess the team behind this article are acutely aware of the rate their owners are burning through cash and are anticipating massive layoffs soon. Perhaps they're looking for a lifeboat with the Apple-despising Financial Times?
It's hard being on the wrong side of prevailing sentiments, and when all this pans out I think people will be a little shocked at how the tech sector's enormous financial advantages will have carried less weight than anyone expected.<p>You can't win politics with money alone. You need a narrative that appeals to peoples' values. Privacy is not a winner in this regard, nor is unrestricted markets (note the leading republican candidate today is pushing an anti-free-trade message). People aren't going to reflexively favor technological progress for its own sake when they see it undermining things they care about (jobs, security, etc).
Unlike most comments here, I liked the Arcticle: a good summary of problems the big tech companies are having.<p>Personally I have huge sympathy for Apple in this case. I have less sympathy for Google and Facebook. Apple, admittedly for business reasons, has come out strongly supporting privacy and I think they should be awarded for that.
This is a battle humans/technologists have been facing since the advent of paper and pencil.<p>Just for fun, the old Apple advertisement.<p>1984 Apple's Macintosh Commercial (HD)<p>Video <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VtvjbmoDx-I" rel="nofollow">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VtvjbmoDx-I</a>
The article is arguing that tech companies used to operate with impunity and are now facing tougher times.<p>Which company operated without consequences? Microsoft had to decouple IE years ago, and other monopolies have been forced to break apart or sell off pieces. Software patents have caused plenty of headaches and force us to walk on egg shells, hire expensive defense attorneys, or lobby congress for more reasonable laws that promote innovation.<p>This article is all over the place. Leader or not, it's too unfocused to make sense. It's clear whoever compiled and published it does not really understand tech.
I am of a few minds about this. Firstly, I do not want to create a political environment where the government can tell people how their phones can be made (w.r.t. security, particularly). Thus, I want there to be clear limits on what federal agencies are able to do.<p>But secondly, I am skeptical about the way giant corporations wield their power against the government. Apple surely has its own priorities and goals, which are often at odds with mine and, separately, those of the government that represents me. While I have a small bit of influence on how my government operates I have even less influence on how such corporations operate, even though their decisions greatly affect my life. When their position re:privacy reflects mine, I am glad for it, but what happens when the issue is taxation or trade policy? My government might not be pursuing great solutions on these issues, but I don't really trust giant self-interested corporations to have a better solution.<p>Thirdly, though, I am personally concerned about how this debate cements Apple's power to lock down their devices even, in many ways against their users. The particulars of their security design seem to preclude users from writing their own operating systems for the phone or creating/using software that isn't directly sanctioned by the company. The same applies, to a great extent, to other hardware and software vendors (in particular, Google/Microsoft/Motorola/Samsung/HTC/etc.). I suspect this battle will end up giving us more locked-down devices in the name of security.
Well I can't expect HN to agree with this article, but let's face it, technologies pose new political questions.<p>I think the argument about the iPhone backdoor software is a slippery slope one. As long as the judicial system use mandates and the process is transparent, I think you can't really complain. This is what Snowden is about.<p>We're talking about homeland defense here, the Islamic State is on the rise, so I would be careful when defending Apple here.<p>Now I'm not a lawyer nor a political scientist, but I want to side with the FBI on this one. I'm sure Apple is playing their popularity card here. There are things that are more important and go beyond gadgets built in the silicon valley. It doesn't necessarily have something to do with Snowden.<p>I expect people to disagree with me here, and it's fine.
As i understand the situation, the FBI only wanted Apple to create a operating system that lives in the devices ram that removes the wipe after 10 tries. This would not comprimise Apple's encryption since the operating system would still contain Apple's private key (and the FBI added one time use provisions, also that this could happen in an Apple Facility).<p>Hence the question is, Does Apple have to make a different OS (so that the FBI could brute force) to see what is contained on the particular device?<p>I think they will be forced to, and i don't know that i have a problem with it.