Apple Won't Create 'Backdoor' to Help FBI Access San Bernardino Shooter's iPhone

[Cameramonkey]

As a user I'm quite okay with that.

As an "owner" of over a thousand iDevices with corporate and security policies to enforce, I'm not. We both have the same goal in mind; Appropriate control of the device you own.

 

[dusty88]

As an "owner" of over a thousand iDevices with corporate and security policies to enforce, I'm not. We both have the same goal in mind; Appropriate control of the device you own.

to back up to the layperson's perspective.... is there not a format that allows a corporation to control the devices it gives to employees ?

This seems it should be a very different market than personal devices.

And I heard that Blackberry had great new technology, including its encryption, but just isn't popular anymore. Although I can only believe what I hear on that issue.

 

[Cameramonkey]

to back up to the layperson's perspective.... is there not a format that allows a corporation to control the devices it gives to employees ?

This seems it should be a very different market than personal devices.

And I heard that Blackberry had great new technology, including its encryption, but just isn't popular anymore. Although I can only believe what I hear on that issue.

In a word, No.

It wasnt until the past year or two that Apple's behavior changed. Prior to that they essentially took the mindset that the business world was 100% BYOD and corporations simply did not ever buy idevices for their employees to use. Never. All of their policies were geared toward protecting the phone in the hand from anyone remote because the person holding it was ALWAYS the owner. So even though I own the device in your hand, and you are simply using it as part of your employment, I have no control over my device. It would be similar to GM stating it would not allow GPS fleet trackers to be used because there simply was no such thing as a company car, only reimbursed private vehicle use.

Fast forward to iOS8 I believe and they have started to embrace enterprise use of iDevices. They segmented off parts of the storage for specific uses. One section is health. So even if you are using a fitbit, glucose tracker or other truly personal device, the data is segregated from my Corporate data. They are inching closer and closer to adding enterprise features to the system.

A prime example of why enterprises NEED full control. My company is getting ready to roll out a paperless system that uses ipads to enter data and capture signatures. Apps are VEEEEEERY picky and sensitive to the exact iOS version installed. So an app programmed to work with v6 wont necessarily work with v7. Apple provides no way for me to control if/when a user can update the version on his device. Literally there is nothing to stop my users from updating to the latest version, breaking the app and preventing him from doing his job until the app developer is able to patch it. So he could be down for days, unable to do his job. And once Apple releases a new version, it disables old versions from being installed again. so if iOS9 doesnt work with your app, you cant roll it back to iOS8 without Apple re-enabling it for installation. And that only happens when its a major flaw and millions are affected. my small user base wont get them to activate the old version so I'd have to wait to use that device until the app is fixed.

I doubt they will truly get around to what Blackberry offers (a 100% cloud controllable device except for personal health space) , but here is hoping!

And Blackberry is too far out of the loop to be relevant anymore. Too little, too late for users to abandon the Apple/Android ships. I dont expect those to be used outside of .gov contracts.

 

[dusty88]

In a word, No.

It wasnt until the past year or two that Apple's behavior changed. Prior to that they essentially took the mindset that the business world was 100% BYOD and corporations simply did not ever buy idevices for their employees to use. Never. All of their policies were geared toward protecting the phone in the hand from anyone remote because the person holding it was ALWAYS the owner. So even though I own the device in your hand, and you are simply using it as part of your employment, I have no control over my device. It would be similar to GM stating it would not allow GPS fleet trackers to be used because there simply was no such thing as a company car, only reimbursed private vehicle use.

Fast forward to iOS8 I believe and they have started to embrace enterprise use of iDevices. They segmented off parts of the storage for specific uses. One section is health. So even if you are using a fitbit, glucose tracker or other truly personal device, the data is segregated from my Corporate data. They are inching closer and closer to adding enterprise features to the system.

A prime example of why enterprises NEED full control. My company is getting ready to roll out a paperless system that uses ipads to enter data and capture signatures. Apps are VEEEEEERY picky and sensitive to the exact iOS version installed. So an app programmed to work with v6 wont necessarily work with v7. Apple provides no way for me to control if/when a user can update the version on his device. Literally there is nothing to stop my users from updating to the latest version, breaking the app and preventing him from doing his job until the app developer is able to patch it. So he could be down for days, unable to do his job. And once Apple releases a new version, it disables old versions from being installed again. so if iOS9 doesnt work with your app, you cant roll it back to iOS8 without Apple re-enabling it for installation. And that only happens when its a major flaw and millions are affected. my small user base wont get them to activate the old version so I'd have to wait to use that device until the app is fixed.

I doubt they will truly get around to what Blackberry offers (a 100% cloud controllable device except for personal health space) , but here is hoping!

And Blackberry is too far out of the loop to be relevant anymore. Too little, too late for users to abandon the Apple/Android ships. I dont expect those to be used outside of .gov contracts.

Thanks for taking the time for the detailed explanation

"You must spread some reputation around before giving it to Cameramonkey again"

 

[flightsimmer]

So I just got an update a few days ago on my Galaxy S5 but have not installed it yet. Is this the update your talking about in post #214? If so I think I'll just delete it.

 

[pudly]

So I just got an update a few days ago on my Galaxy S5 but have not installed it yet. Is this the update your talking about in post #214? If so I think I'll just delete it.

No, that is Amazon Fire OS updates. Fire OS is an Amazon-customized version of Android. The Galaxy series uses regular Android, so you should be fine.

 

[flightsimmer]

No, that is Amazon Fire OS updates. Fire OS is an Amazon-customized version of Android. The Galaxy series uses regular Android, so you should be fine.

Thanks.

 

[actaeon277]

https://www.yahoo.com/politics/obama-on-encryption-debate-there-has-to-be-some-001303137.html

Oh good. Our Pres has stepped up and clarified for us.

Obama said he felt it was wrong to take an “absolutist perspective,” and proposed a form of encryption in which a few organizations can access the key for systems in certain agreed-upon scenarios.

However, Obama did admit that he was not an expert in the area of cryptography, saying “how we design that is not something that I have the expertise to do.”

After the event, Rep. Darrell Issa, R-CA.... released a statement criticizing Obama’s viewpoint.“The President’s speech today showed a fundamental lack of understanding of the tech community, the complexities of encryption, and the importance of privacy to our safety in an increasingly digital world,” it read. “There’s just no way to create a special key for government that couldn’t also be taken advantage of by the Russians, the Chinese, or others who want access to the sensitive information we all carry in our pockets everyday.”

 

[actaeon277]

https://www.yahoo.com/tech/fbi-doing-great-job-making-sure-next-iphone-151317689.html

The FBI is doing a great job of making sure your next iPhone is unhackable

 

[mrjarrell]

Apple engineers are saying they will refuse to work on a workaround or, if necessary, they'll quit. That's dedication to a cause.

Apple engineers say they could refuse or quit if ordered to unlock iPhone by FBI | 9to5Mac

 

[K_W]

Apple engineers are saying they will refuse to work on a workaround or, if necessary, they'll quit. That's dedication to a cause.

Apple engineers say they could refuse or quit if ordered to unlock iPhone by FBI | 9to5Mac

They could still be subpoenaed, they can't "quit" the knowledge in their head...

But then would the existing precedent (5th amendment protection) against being compelled to decrypt your own drive to provide evidence come in to play? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Key_disclosure_law#United_States

Can a then private person be compelled to create things that "don't exist" or face punishment?

Could they as individuals be compelled by court order to violate Apple's patents (violate other's rights) by court order?

 

[poptab]

They already are compelled to work for the government for 4 months every year, so i guess it's not that far a stretch.

 

[Tombs]

They could still be subpoenaed, they can't "quit" the knowledge in their head...

But then would the existing precedent (5th amendment protection) against being compelled to decrypt your own drive to provide evidence come in to play? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Key_disclosure_law#United_States

Can a then private person be compelled to create things that "don't exist" or face punishment?

Could they as individuals be compelled by court order to violate Apple's patents (violate other's rights) by court order?

Why does this have a ring of slavery to me?

That sounds like all kinds of illegal.

 

[HKUSP]

They already are compelled to work for the government for 4 months every year, so i guess it's not that far a stretch.

 

[printcraft]

The .gov should compel someone to make a alchemist machine to turn lead into gold.
Think of how fast we could solve the national debt!

 

[jamil]

The .gov should compel someone to make a alchemist machine to turn lead into gold.
Think of how fast we could solve the national debt!

Wait. Isn't that called the printing press? Well, except the printing press turns "paper" made of cotton and linen into currency. Same idea though. At least it's lighter than gold.

 

[KLB]

The .gov should compel someone to make a alchemist machine to turn lead into gold.
Think of how fast we could solve the national debt!

You must be a lib wanting to drive up the cost of lead to make bullets more expensive!

 

[pudly]

You must be a lib wanting to drive up the cost of lead to make bullets more expensive!

Nah. Printcraft is actually Francisco Scaramanga and he simply wants more bullets for his golden gun.

 

[Jludo]

The .gov should compel someone to make a alchemist machine to turn lead into gold.
Think of how fast we could solve the national debt!

Even better, go full FDR and just steal everyone's gold again.

 

[HoughMade]

You must be a lib wanting to drive up the cost of lead to make bullets more expensive!

...and devalue gold.