U.S. DoJ Increases Hostility Towards Apple In Latest Court Filing

Latest Videos FromTom's Hardware
TOPICS
Contributor

Lucian Armasu is a Contributing Writer for Tom's Hardware US. He covers software news and the issues surrounding privacy and security.

  • turkey3_scratch
    I don't see why the government doesn't go next door to that person's phone provider. They have records of every bit of data of communication that person made.

    The sadder part is that some hacker in his basement could probably get into this phone but the FBI can't.
    Reply
  • Gam3r01
    "and it may even demand Apple release its iOS source code as well as its cryptographic signatures for the OS"
    So they cant convince (and/or force) apple to open one phone but threatening them with the forcible compromise all of their devices... yeah.... Theyll do that for you.
    Reply
  • heliomphalodon
    I now believe that Apple will lose in this court. The judge will be very reluctant to vacate her own order. Apple will appeal, but I fear they will fail. The DOJ's arguments seem to me to be persuasive in terms of current US law.
    What I hope Apple does now is capitulate on this battle, while going all-out to win the greater war. Say, "OK, fine. Now, watch this." and release a new version of iOS that removes all back doors, even Apple's own back door that allows them to install a new version of iOS on an iPhone without the customer's consent.
    Reply
  • Epsilon_0EVP
    I don't see why the government doesn't go next door to that person's phone provider. They have records of every bit of data of communication that person made.

    The sadder part is that some hacker in his basement could probably get into this phone but the FBI can't.

    It's not that the FBI can't do it; they very clearly explain that in the article. It's that the FBI wants to have a backdoor to avoid having to do it themselves.
    Reply
  • turkey3_scratch
    Apple could try suing the government. The government tries to break the law whenever possible, and it's the people's job to point this out. They could easily try suing them. What's the government going to do if Apple doesn't open the phone? Shoot the workers? What if the workers claim they don't have the programming experience to do so? Even though it's a lie, technically it could work. My question is what law states the government has a right to do this.
    Reply
  • turkey3_scratch
    17643117 said:
    I don't see why the government doesn't go next door to that person's phone provider. They have records of every bit of data of communication that person made.

    The sadder part is that some hacker in his basement could probably get into this phone but the FBI can't.

    It's not that the FBI can't do it; they very clearly explain that in the article. It's that the FBI wants to have a backdoor to avoid having to do it themselves.

    No, if they could they would.
    Reply
  • heliomphalodon
    17643123 said:
    Apple could try suing the government. The government tries to break the law whenever possible, and it's the people's job to point this out. They could easily try suing them. What's the government going to do if Apple doesn't open the phone? Shoot the workers? What if the workers claim they don't have the programming experience to do so? Even though it's a lie, technically it could work. My question is what law states the government has a right to do this.

    It's actually the All Writs Act that (allegedly) gives the government the right to coerce Apple in this way.
    It's not inconceivable that Tim Cook could be jailed for contempt of court if Apple continues to refuse to comply after all legal avenues have been exhausted.
    Reply
  • DeadlyDays
    this brief on the issue I like, has most of the points in previous articles comments. This is all about the precedent it would set, as they could break into it and it is very unlikely there is anything on it as it wasn't his personal phone and he went through the effort to destroy his personal phone but not this one
    Reply
  • Gam3r01
    17643167 said:
    this brief on the issue I like, has most of the points in previous articles comments. This is all about the precedent it would set, as they could break into it and it is very unlikely there is anything on it as it wasn't his personal phone and he went through the effort to destroy his personal phone but not this one

    I agree, does anyone honestly think this is just about the single phone anymore?
    Reply
  • heliomphalodon
    17643174 said:
    17643167 said:
    this brief on the issue I like, has most of the points in previous articles comments. This is all about the precedent it would set, as they could break into it and it is very unlikely there is anything on it as it wasn't his personal phone and he went through the effort to destroy his personal phone but not this one

    I agree, does anyone honestly think this is just about the single phone anymore?

    It was never about just this one phone. Claims to the contrary were/are just the DOJ trying to blow smoke up our asses.
    Reply