I'm not generally one to start debates about political/news issues, but this one is rather disturbing. A recent privacy legal battle is starting again (or continuing). The US government is attempting to force Apple to write a program that will allow them access to Apple devices. If you've heard the over-simplified blurbs in the news, it probably reads something like "Apple refuses to unlock San Bernadino Shooter's Phone". The administration is really taking the low road on this one and picking a case that will make Apple sound like co-conspirators in domestic terrorism.

In reality though, it's not just that they won't 'unlock' their phone or release code or documentation on how to do it, but their attempting to compell them to write a program that will allow them to open any Apple device. Apple's argument is that this is tantamount to compelled speech and is fighting it.

I'm rather confused as to why they have to resort to the 'compelled speach' defense. How can the government force anyone to work for them? Can they just force a construction company to build a building for them?

I'm kind of surprised the topic isn't already up here since it's computer/tech related, but maybe the purposeful linking of the case to San-Bernidino is having it's indended effect of silencing objection.

(Full disclosure: I'm left-leaning politically and socially, but against government backdoors/tech-spying. Creates huge security holes and they've shown they can't keep their own data safe.)

Can the government tell you to do X Y or Z really depends on your view of what government should do.

The question is would you allow an aspect of your life be controlled by an entity that is the government. So now it becomes an issue of trust. Can you trust the government that it's not going to go beyond of what it has promised to do or not do?

I personally never trust an entity, be that a company, a government, or a religious institution. Their promise is as good as the current leader's integrity. A government becomes especially so since in a democratic country, they rotate leadership a lot, and they don't usually repel previous regulations, or repelling them becomes political and a costly expense.

Ultimately, nobody can force you to do anything. They can, however, provide immensely powerful incentives for compliance... like not getting imprisoned, tortured, or killed.

It's actually very liberating to realize that virtually all of human social structure (outside of some of our uglier forms of conflict) is based around mutual cooperation. People may do things out of senses of obligation, loyalty, altruism, fear of reprisal, or even genuine desires to cooperate - but ultimately everyone is free to refuse to cooperate, provided they accept the consequences.

We tend to resent and eventually displace institutions and people who abuse the power to inflict those consequences, though.


I think the better question is: how hard can the government squeeze before a sufficiently large number of people join in the dissent and put a stop to the coercion?

Legally, Apple needs to operate within the bounds of the law, whether this means complying with the request or suing so they don't have to.

Realistically, Apple can do whatever they want, with whatever consequences that leads to.

The government is asking for something extremely prone to abuse. Depending on Apple's level of paranoia when it comes to device security (which seems pretty extreme considering the snafu about Error 53 and other things I've heard about in the past), it's likely that Apple themselves can't even hack their own devices.

...it's likely that Apple themselves can't even hack their own devices.

It's not likely, it's a fact. Apple can not decrypt the data on an iPhone.

What the US Justice System is compelling Apple to do is to provide a version of the firmware that runs their iPhone (and only their iPhone) that does not have a 5 second lockout on invalid PIN entry, does not have a wipe-on-too-many-invalid-attempts fail-safe, and allows PIN entry through a side channel. This will allow the FBI, and any other organization such as a crime syndicate or foreign power, to use the powerful brute-force password cracking machines already at their disposal.

The hesitancy on the part of Apple to comply with this lawful order is due to the fact that once that software is released into the wild, it enables the FBI, and all the other possessors of bute-force cracking machinery, to have an arbitrary back door into any and every iPhone in existence. Needless to say, that would have the unintended consequence of destroying Apple Corps. bottom line.

Unfortunately, it is also possible for a learned hacker at the FBI (or in a Russian crime syndicate, or at Google) to hack the existing firmware to accomplish pretty much the same thing, it would just take longer.

In short, yes, a company can be legally compelled to provide software to accomplish a certain task. That company should protest vehemently and appeal. A stay in proceedings should be issued until the appeal is resolved. It should probably go to the highest court, where all issues including unintended consequences and the propagation of the rule of law have been considered in due course. Then, well, drink the hemlock.

There's such thing as "key disclosure laws" where if you're able to decrypt a file (for which a court has issued a warrant), they can force you to decrypt it (where force = compel via threat of punishment).

I'm not sure about the specifics of this case, but maybe they're bending these laws to try and say Apple is holding a decryption key...

It's actually very liberating to realize that virtually all of human social structure (outside of some of our uglier forms of conflict) is based around mutual cooperation. People may do things out of senses of obligation, loyalty, altruism, fear of reprisal, or even genuine desires to cooperate - but ultimately everyone is free to refuse to cooperate, provided they accept the consequences.

Another way to state that is that every social structure is actually built on a foundation of violence. Government is just a monopoly on violence.

The hesitancy on the part of Apple to comply with this lawful order is due to the fact that once that software is released into the wild, it enables the FBI, and all the other possessors of bute-force cracking machinery, to have an arbitrary back door into any and every iPhone in existence. Needless to say, that would have the unintended consequence of destroying Apple Corps. bottom line.

I think saying it'll "destroy" Apple's bottom line is exaggeration.

Apple makes the bulk of their money by selling overpriced hardware to computer-ignorant people who want to look cool. Apple is now very much like Nike.
Intelligent and tech-savy consumers are likely a small segment of Apple's sales, and that's the only segment that Apple is likely to lose sales from if Apple met minipax's demands.

Ofcourse, this doesn't automatically mean the government is in the right. I just think, whether Apple fought or didn't, it wouldn't cost them any (domestic) sales.

Without commenting on whether Apple or the government is in the right (and generally, I distrust both), I think saying it'll destroy "Apple Corps. bottom line" is exaggeration.

Apple makes the bulk of their money by selling overpriced hardware to computer-ignorant people who want to look cool. Apple is now very much like Nike.
Intelligent and tech-savy consumers are likely a small segment of Apple's sales, and that's the only segment that Apple is likely to lose sales from if Apple met minipax's demands.

I'd have to disagree. The reason they are fighting it is due to past bottom-line problems. Before the Snowden leaks, Apple gleefully complied with the government with no argument. Once the leaks got out, they began to fight it. It damaged their reputation in other coutries, damaged trust in the company, and essentially made them an arm of the U.S. government. If it hadn't damaged their bottom-line, they wouldn't be fighting it.

If it hasn't cost them money, they at least perceive the possibility that it will cost them money. At some point, governments could easily pass laws stating that it's illegal to distribute software that has a government backdoor in it - which would cut them off from the rest of the world if enough countries did it. All it would take is the EU issuing some law (or guidline or whatever they call them) to chop their earnings by 1/3rd.

If you think that's far-fetched, look at what China is doing. Microsoft, who hasn't seemed as willing to fight against it, is essentially being dumped by the Chinese government. They are developing their own OS. China apparently isn't comfortable with the idea of the US government possibly backdooring into their top secret files, weapons, or infrastructure control systems.

I think a big problem with this isn't so much the short-term privacy concerns, but that it's building a information-control infrastructre that is uncomfortably omniscient in any situation where a less democractic law-governed government is in control. Imagine a situation were a dictator decides to use the same system to track, monitor, and eliminate political opponents. Conveniently enough, the same system could be used to reward business allies with information on their competition. It's not like this sort of thing can't happen in the US. Immagine this level of techno-control back during the "Red Scare".

You're right, Apple's global sales is a far larger percentage (66% of their revenue) that I originally thought.

Since Apple isn't cooperating and further legal battle would take a long time, wouldn't it be faster for the FBI to bridge some system components in order to dump their content and then brute force it offline? It's a lot of work but will work and get results faster than going all way up until Supreme Court.