A new petition is asking the Obama Administration to halt the FBI's efforts to compel Apple to create a software backdoor into iOS in order to access data on the iPhone 5c of one of the San Bernardino shooters. The petition, posted on the White House's We the People site, calls the FBI's efforts an "unprecedented step" that threatens the security of Apple's customers.
The FBI, is demanding that Apple build a "backdoor" to bypass digital locks protecting consumer information on Apple's popular iPhones.
We the undersigned, oppose this order, which has implications far beyond the legal case at hand.
As of this writing, the petition has gathered 8,331 digital signatures. If it receives 100,000 by March 18, 2016, it will merit a response from the Administration.
At the same time, Congressman Ted Lieu of California's 33rd congresional district — one of the small handful of lawmakers with a background in computer science — has expressed his concerns over the FBI's approach. In a statement, Congressman Lieu cautioned against rash action that could weaken both the privacy of American citizens, as well as American enterprise.
Forcing Apple to weaken its encryption system in this one case means the government can force Apple—or any other private sector company—to weaken encryption systems in all future cases. This precedent-setting action will both weaken the privacy of Americans and hurt American businesses. And how can the FBI ensure the software that it is forcing Apple to create won't fall into the wrong hands? Given the number of cyberbreaches in the federal government—including at the Department of Justice—the FBI cannot guarantee this back door software will not end up in the hands of hackers or other criminals.
Apple has been locked in a public battle with the FBI and Department of Justice since it publically stated its opposition to a court order requiring the company to help unlock the shooter's phone. The chair of the House Commerce Committee recently invited both Apple CEO Tim Cook and FBI director James Comey to testify before the committee on this matter.
Reader comments
Citizens call on White House to end FBI efforts to compel Apple in phone unlocking case
I've never been a fan of Apple products. They just aren't for me. That being said, Tim Cooke and Apple's stance on keeping their products secure even when their government flies a red herring by everyone and asks them to trade liberty for security, I may just have to join the team.
Good for you, Apple. I'm glad to see your consumers and even people who use the competition supporting not just your cause, but everyone's cause.
~TheRealFixxxer
Apple has different stance when comes to China. In 2015, Tim Cook agreed to had over iPhone operating source code and security system information so they sell could in China.
http://www.france24.com/en/20160219-usa-apple-plays-digital-privacy-hard...
LOL at the petition. They told me if I voted for Romney, the government would be pressuring phone makers to make everyone's phone vulnerable to hackers and spies. And they were right!
Huh?
How about Apple give up on a marketing ploy and follow the law of the land it chooses to do business in. We are a nation of laws right? Then let's let the courts figure out the right way forward.
"Law-and-order politicians and many law enforcement and national security officials see the Bill of Rights not as the foundation of a free society but as an obstacle that prevents them from doing their jobs. Keep this in mind when they use a national emergency to argue for exceptions to those rights."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-watch/wp/2014/10/29/surprise-con...
This is a tough one. I see both the need & urgency to get into the shooter's phone. However, the need for overall security is also very important.
Why can't Apple crack the phone on their campus & offline, then destroy the code so no one can leak it? Maybe that would set the precedent for Apple to have to field requests from other governmental agencies etc.
It's just a big **** sandwich.
Sent from the iMore App
"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
-Benjamin Franklyn
Yeah a quote about a tax dispute from hundreds of years ago is so applicable here. Learn about the context of that quote so as not to misuse it.
+1
Posted via the Android iMore App!
If that quote were meant to apply exclusively to a tax dispute, it would have been worded differently. Franklyn was a well known advocate for individual freedom and civil liberties.
Until it affects you personally that is…………..
http://modmyi.com/content/21509-san-bernardino-victims-support-fbi-iphon...
"Carole Adams, mom who lost son in San Bernardino shooting, sides with Apple"
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/feb/20/carole-adams-mom-who-los...
Regardless, that is a bad example, because the victims' family members are likely unfamiliar with how encryption works and why it's essential that no backdoors are created. They are probably also unaware that even if Apple were compelled to create a backdoor - rendering iOS insecure - terrorists and other criminals would always have third party encryption solutions without any such backdoors. Also, important government policy should be decided based on logic, not emotion.
If any of you had been shot by one of the terrorists, you'd be screaming for Apple to break that passcode. What if there is information on that phone that could be used to prevent the next attack, but Apple doesn't unlock the phone until a week or so after it happens? Some of you are seriously living in a bubble.
Sent from the iMore App
And if a hacker then gets into your phone, and steals your personal info, you will then be screaming at Apple.
No I wouldnt. Only you and the other loyal sheep would do that
Posted via the iMore App for Android
Just because you've chosen to surrender your privacy and security to Google doesn't mean that Apple's customers are willing to do the same.
I use an iPhone 6s Plus...1d10t. I just prefer android tablets and windows computers. I am a thinking human, and not a blind loyalist.
Posted via the iMore App for Android
If, if, if... There are good reasons not to do everthing you can do when you want to live in a free society and the security agencies always wants more then it's good to give them. Or where is the line? Hurt people to get information, toture then, kill them? Apple said that for them this already cross a line where this produce more risks for us all then it maybe could help someone and many agree.
How many basic freedoms are you willing to sacrifice in return for the false promise of security?
Why is it that no one understands that privacy is not a all or nothing condition in both Canada and the US. There are laws in place that allow law enforcement to obtain lawful authority to search a persons home, safety deposit box, safe, even intercept private communication; this process has been in place for decades. In this case the FBI has made a lawful request, Apple has no right to say no, unless they can't actually comply, not just won't comply. If the people don't like these laws they have the right to vote and pressure government to change the laws.
I don't know if we should all be patting ourselves on the back when a corporation decides to not comply with the law, who voted them into power. Maybe we should stop and think about how happy we are that Apple is looking out for us, what is the next law they'll decide isn't in their customers best interest?
This is not the NSA breaking the law by secretly collecting information, the FBI filed legal docs to search the phone and have Apple assist.
"Why is it that no one understands that privacy is not a all or nothing condition in both Canada and the US. "
You are the one presenting this false dichotomy, not I. The debate is not about whether or not to have any privacy at all. The debate is about where the line should be drawn when balancing the interests of security/law enforcement and privacy/civil liberties.
"There are laws in place that allow law enforcement to obtain lawful authority to search a persons home, safety deposit box, safe, even intercept private communication; this process has been in place for decades."
And there are important limits to those laws, limits which are essential to preserve democratic rule and a free society. For example, a search warrant may allow law enforcement to search a suspect's home, but it cannot compel the suspect to divulge information that might be self-incriminating. Likewise, law enforcement is not allowed to ransack every home in a neighborhood in search of illegal conduct.
Some interpretations of those laws are in direct conflict with the Bill of Rights, which was ratified over 220 years ago and forms the centerpiece of our nation's commitment to civil liberties.
Many in law enforcement and national security have long sought to defeat those limits since the country's founding, prioritizing the ease with which they perform their jobs against the constitutionally guaranteed rights of the citizens they are supposed to serve.
"In this case the FBI has made a lawful request..."
Hardly. There is a vigorous debate taking place about the legality of this request. Unless the FBI backs down, this will likely go all the way to the Supreme Court.
Apple has already cooperated with investigators for months and has already provided access to a great deal of information, in accordance with established law regarding search warrants.
But now the FBI is going much further. They are not merely asking Apple to reveal information as part of a lawful investigation. They are attempting to set a catastrophic legal precedent by forcing Apple to develop a tool which would allow anyone to bypass the most secure encrypted elements of the iPhone's operating system.
This would inevitably lead to the use (and misuse) of said tool in other investigations, including many outside the reach of public oversight. Today it's used to search for a terrorist's contacts... tomorrow it will be used to investigate people for drug use. In the wrong hands (and there are many wrong hands within our government) it will be abused to expand our surveillance society and stifle free speech, free will, and dissent.
Even a cursory review of our country's evolving attitudes over topics like slavery, women's rights, drug use, and homosexuality highlights the importance of dissent in preserving our free society.
Back to the FBI, this case raises two enormously important legal questions:
1) Can the government compel a private individual or corporation to develop a nonexistent technology or methodology, to the detriment of their values, their business model, and their customers?
2) Are we to permit the US government to outlaw security and encryption, given that this would be the inevitable outcome if the FBI were to prevail, and given that this would guarantee similar measures from China and other repressive countries?
You raise a good hypothetical but for every single hypothetical you raise by forcing Apple to unlock one iPhone I can raise 1 billion hypotheticals for each unencrypted iPhone that the Chinese, terrorists, NSA and unknowns have free reign to spy on and the act upon.
Both sides can claim slippery slopes. In my opinion, in this poker game, your raise of a billion units won't cover the one unit bet.
Posted via the Android iMore App!
What's on my iPhone should stay on my iPhone! The government already has plenty of ways to get information on us and in fact has data banks filled with info about us all. I am tired of Big Brother peeking and snooping around everywhere. FIGHT Apple! This is not only about your products, it's about helping us try to keep some bits of privacy before its all shredded away.
no back door, side doors or basement Windows....else we should just give up and post our pass codes on Twitter!
I agree there are debates going on about where the lines of privacy should be drawn, my biggest problem with this situation is that a corporation is now choosing not to follow the laws in place. Oh, the same corporation that had to be taken to court for searching its own employees when they wanted to leave work. The employees lost their fight against Apple on a technicality, some silly thing like they could choose not to take a bag into work. What got lost is that Apple was searching these bags without probable cause, something law enforcement has to have. So let's not all give our babies to Apple to raise just yet, privacy is a marketable commodity and Apple is using it, their only loyalty is to their shareholders. The second their stance hurts the stock price is the same second they open whatever to whomever.
The interesting thing about all this is IF Apple were forced to do this, who's to say that anything will be found on the phone. The shooters destroyed their personal phones. Why would they not destroy this phone if they thought it might have any trace of evidence on it? That'll make the FBI look even dumber than they do for botching the iCloud reset but it won't even matter because the precedence will be set moving forward.