David Smith wrote:
It's clearly a pretext. They chose what they thought would likely be a publicly popular excuse. Hopefully, they'll lose their bet this time. But they won't stop trying.
These were my comments on another forum:
1. The alleged perp destroyed other devices in his control, presumably for good reason, from which little or no information could be extracted, but did NOT destroy this device. This suggests that there is unlikely to be any information of much use to the FBI on it.2. If this device had been properly handled and secured by law enforcement, no one would have changed the passcode, thereby preventing further cloud backups. This rendered moot Apple's advice to law enforcement (to plug the device in to power and let it make its normal cloud backup). Apple had already provided the data from backups in previous cases under search warrant, and did so for this device from ITS earlier backups. The mishandling rendered this simple, quick, and established procedure impossible.3. This incompetent handling of the device gave the FBI a pretext ("excuse") to demand that Apple create a tool for them to hack its own security measures, an unprecedented action and one fraught with myriad bad, bad consequences.4. If I were a conspiracy theorist, I might think that the device was intentionally mishandled, specifically to give the FBI this pretext.
I cannot help but think that this will wind up ultimately in the U.S. Supreme Court, and, if Apple prevails, will somewhat dampen government enthusiasm for this type of data rape.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
If you backup your iPhone/iPad data to your computer, you can do so with, or without, encryption. If you encrypt, the key to that encryption is in YOUR hands only, and courts have previously held that you cannot be compelled to reveal it.
If you backup to iCloud, then your data is securely encrypted in transit (AES-128 + SSL), but it is DE-crypted at the server end, and then re-encrypted with Apple's encryption key.
Apple has previously stated publicly that it would comply with requests for such data if provided with a legitimate search warrant issued for probable cause, and it has done so numerous times.
The present issue, however, is not one of Apple simply unlocking data for which it holds the key.
Rather, it is one of Apple being ordered to build a tool to assist in the breaking of encryption that it purposefully built into its devices, so that a third party (the FBI in this case) can find the private key to break into your device, or mine, or anyone else's they choose to, once the legal precedent is set.
__._,_.___
Posted by: Jim Saklad <jimdoc@icloud.com>
| Reply via web post | • | Reply to sender | • | Reply to group | • | Start a New Topic | • | Messages in this topic (6) |
.
__,_._,___