Arizona County Attorney To Ditch iPhones Over Apple Dispute With FBI (networkworld.com) 345
alphadogg writes: Apple's refusal to help the FBI unlock an iPhone 5c used by one of the terrorists in the San Bernardino, California attack on Dec. 2 has prompted the Maricopa County attorney's office in Arizona to ban providing new iPhones to its staff. 'Apple's refusal to cooperate with a legitimate law enforcement investigation to unlock a phone used by terrorists puts Apple on the side of terrorists instead of on the side of public safety,' Maricopa County Attorney Bill Montgomery said in a statement Montgomery described as a corporate public relations stunt Apple's positioning of its refusal to cooperate on privacy grounds. On the other hand, I suspect Apple's public refusal to decrypt, and Tim Cook's strong words in favor of user privacy, have probably triggered an opposite reaction among many would-be phone buyers.
Government Idiocy (Score:5, Insightful)
I wouldn't recommend iphones to anyone but certainly not for this reason. The whole notion of lumping Apple in with this classification of criminal is just batshit crazy.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Government Idiocy (Score:5, Insightful)
This is Arizona. The guns are already smarter than some of the Sherriffs.
Re: (Score:3)
Once they bring in android phones, I can't wait to see all of sheriff joe's dirty emails that get leaked by hackers. I hear he has a strong position on illegal immigrants!
maybe they will wish they used phones with better encryption.
Re:Government Idiocy (Score:5, Interesting)
No good. Google is on Apple's side here. So Android's out. Microsoft sided with the FBI though. So maybe Arizonans can all switch to windows phone. Then again, it seems that Gates is now trying to backpedal and say he was misinterpreted. So maybe no windows phones after all. Perhaps Arizona can step back a decade and bring back Blackberry. They're pretty happy to roll over and put in backdoors for governments to spy on their citizens.
Re:Government Idiocy (Score:5, Insightful)
For any but the Nexus devices, it would have to to be the OEMs, since they have the ability to modify and customize Android from its "vanilla" codebase. Google can't take responsibility for code... and especially not hardware and firmware... they do not fully own or control, after all.
And yeah, Google's response to this issue has been rather milquetoast. There was a time when their reply wrt/ the three-letter-agencies was: "Fuck these guys... the US has to be better than this.". I do miss the "Don't be evil" Google.
Re:Government Idiocy (Score:4, Informative)
Well if you want to talk about idiocy, look at how Maricopa County got it's name. It comes from the name of an Indian tribe who called themselves Piipash, but when the conquistadors came in they heard about them from another tribe who called them "Kokmalik'op" which means "enemies in the big mountains", but since the Spanish (as in from Spain; not Mexicans who didn't exist at the time) tend to mangle every single word that doesn't include phonographs in their own language (which itself has a relatively small set of phonograms) they rendered "kokmalikop" as "maricopa" (sounds like "mod-ee-copa") that's what we call them today, and how Maricopa County has its namesake.
Re:Government Idiocy (Score:5, Insightful)
The whole notion of lumping Apple in with this classification of criminal is just batshit crazy.
The Maricopa County sheriff, Joe Arpaio [wikipedia.org] has built his entire political career around being batshit crazy. This is just another political stunt to get his name in the news. If you think the people are too smart to vote for such a shallow egotist, then you have obviously never been to southern Arizona.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
While I agree with you about Joe, you might want to read the article and see that it's the county *attorney*, not the county sheriff. In fact Arpaio's not mentioned in the article at all.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I wouldn't recommend iphones to anyone but certainly not for this reason. The whole notion of lumping Apple in with this classification of criminal is just batshit crazy.
I've noticed that, starting today, there is a drumbeat of "Apple is siding with the Terrists!" in news-story after news-story.
The Farce is strong in this issue.
Re: (Score:2)
How hard is it to come up with a better troll than - multinational company takes advantage of local tax laws AS IT SHOULD.
BTW, it's ~$100 Billion dollars overseas. Because they don't want to be double taxed.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You're holding up a work of dramatic FICTION, with all of it's hollywood over dramatizations, as evidence of Mobsters being political?
Switching to easier to hack mobile phones (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I live in Maricopa county, and I've emailed Montgomery a few times to complain about how corrupt he and the AZ government is in general.
I get back replies that amount to "nu-uh!"
He's a perfect example of someone with low IQ working hard and getting a law degree, right wing enough to get elected in AZ, and dumb enough to think we won't notice that this is just a sad publicity stunt.
Re: (Score:2)
How does this in any way relate to grand jury confidentiality?
Ok... think about this for a sec... (Score:5, Interesting)
A government agency wants to use, factually, LESS secure phones in its office to make a political statement.
Is the point that government agencies should always use less secure phones so the public can access their salient details? In that case I agree but I don't think that's the point he's trying to make.
Re:Ok... I thought about it... (Score:2)
"...puts Apple on the side of terrorists instead of on the side of public safety" says the lawyer who one would think wants to keep his business private.
How long ago was it that lawyers were outraged by the TSA's policy to "search" laptops at the border? They adopted a clean hard-drive policy and the lawyers would download content via "the cloud" after arriving at their destination.
But this lawyer wants his phone to be searchable. Interesting indeed. Please define Public Safety.
My concern is around unl
Re: (Score:2)
A government agency wants to use, factually, LESS secure phones in its office to make a political statement.
Did you notice what county it is? They've become famous for political grandstanding lately.
Re:Apple is Grandstanding (Score:4, Interesting)
If it's the right thing to do, I don't think it matters much why they are doing it. They also aren't putting in back doors for China. The only thing I've read is that they've agreed to let China verify that there are NOT backdoors, which is just the opposite.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
[citation needed]
Re: (Score:2)
Apple WILL comply when it gets to the point where federal marshals show up at Apple HQ to arrest Mr. Cook for not complying with a court order.
Re: (Score:2)
Some would argue that justice is ALWAYS for sale, if you have enough money.
Where not totally true in all cases, sadly money can still buy a lot of justice in some situations.
Re: (Score:2)
Not justice - politics, grandstanding, getting re-elected.
That's always for sell.
Just a stunt ... (Score:5, Insightful)
This is a publicity stunt, but Americans should be terrified that it is now considered un-American for a corporation to refuse to assist the government to spy on citizens and bypass protections.
I would at least expect some of the Republicans to be howling about this, but it seems like all sides of American politics have pretty much said "refusal to comply with the government demands to spy on people is wrong, we need more government spying".
Holy crap, guys, really?
Papers please, comrade. You have nothing to fear if you have nothing to hide.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
America has fallen, not to any invader, but to its own government...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Just a stunt ... (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm against the home builder being compelled to kick the door in for the police because they can't figure out the lock. That's a closer analogy.
Re: (Score:3)
Very much this.
People who don't understand the technical details maybe shouldn't be making incorrect and overbroad statements.
Re:Just a stunt ... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Just a stunt ... (Score:5, Insightful)
It is pretty common that people or businesses are being subpoenaed or ordered by the court to cooperate in a criminal investigation, and little care is given for your interest in the matter.
Subpoenas and court orders to cooperate in investigations have always been along the lines of "come to the courthouse and testify" and "Let us look at your records/books/transaction logs/call logs/records/and any other collection of facts you have within your possession." NEVER has a court order gone so far as to order a company to completely engineer a tool that does not exist.
Drama much ? Apple is asked to cooperate in a criminal investigation, at little cost to them (just a few hours of labor), and no cost to their other lawful customers.
I don't care how little or how much it costs, or how long it takes to accomplish. I don't care that they're being compensated for it. It's indentured servitude. They are being forced to apply their trade for the government's benefit with no right to refuse.
Re:Just a stunt ... (Score:5, Informative)
Apple has not bee served with a warrant or a subpoena. They have been served with a writ of assistance.
Re: Just a stunt ... (Score:5, Informative)
False. My father owns a lock/locksmithing and safe business. He has been hired by police to open locks, and many times refused for a multitude of reasons. He is still in business.
Re: Just a stunt ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Stop using facts in your arguments. This is all about perception.
Re:Just a stunt ... (Score:5, Insightful)
I am against a technology company being compelled to undermine encryption technology so that the law enforcement can go with their usual scope creep from "just for terrorists", to "just for really bad criminals", to "well, maybe tax evasion", to "ok, how about copyright infringement", and finally "because you aren't allowed to keep secrets from us".
Mark my words, it would be a very short time where every fucking traffic stop, and the cop whips out his handy dandy little phone cracker to check your phone in case you've done anything illegal. You know, just in case they missed something.
Tell you what, you want the bullshit scenario you describe, make the encryption strong, and make it illegal to not unlock the phone for the police ... have your fucking thought crime where keeping secrets from the government is illegal.
But don't for a minute pretend this won't go from "this one exceptional circumstance" to "any time we want". Because every other exceptional tool they promised was special and only for extraordinary situations has become used commonly.
Enjoy your fucking police state.
But in a world where law enforcement commits perjury by parallel construction to lie about the evidence they have on you and where it came from ... you can't trust them with these tools. Because they use the tools they said would only be used for terrorism, and then it starts to get used for everything else.
If you found my computer encrypted and I said "no, I won't decrypt it for you", do you think you could just get a warrant and have the people who built the encryption just decode it? Or do you think you'd have to crack it yourself or otherwise coerce me into opening it for you?
Decryption which is so easily bypassed is useless, and it will be misused by both the criminals in law enforcement, and the rest of the criminals.
You can't have workable encryption if law enforcement can do an end run around it. And once American law enforcement has it, every other government will demand it.
Land of the free? Home of the brave? How about land of the scared and whiny who have decided that total compliance with a surveillance state is required?
Pathetic.
Re: (Score:2)
If you found my computer encrypted and I said "no, I won't decrypt it for you", do you think you could just get a warrant and have the people who built the encryption just decode it?
I don't know I could "just" get a warrant, but if a proper warrant is obtained, I expect people to cooperate when they can.
Re:Just a stunt ... (Score:5, Insightful)
If you get a search warrant for my property, it allows you to conduct your own fucking search ... it sure as shit doesn't compel me to show you around and help you find the stuff you're looking for. A warrant isn't a magical unicorn, it's a right to search. But it doesn't mean the one being searched needs to assist.
You can't have it both ways, either you want secure devices, or you want insecure devices to support the police state.
There is no "mostly secure device except for the police state", technology doesn't work that way, and if one person can exploit it someone else can.
What you want is a society in which the police can demand any and all parties assist in whatever their needs are.
In Soviet America, phone searches you.
Re: (Score:2)
But it doesn't mean the one being searched needs to assist.
That's not what's being asked here. Apple is not the suspect. Do try to focus on the actual point.
Re:Just a stunt ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Even more reason why they shouldn't be forced to assist. The FBI is demanding that Apple work for them. The government is not allowed to force labor except if you've been convicted of a crime (Apple hasn't in this case) or it's the draft.
This would be analogous to the police demanding the manufacturer of the locks on the searched house break the locks on this house and in effect break every lock they've every sold and will sell in the future.
Re: (Score:2)
This would be analogous to the police demanding the manufacturer of the locks on the searched house break the locks on this house and in effect break every lock they've every sold and will sell in the future.
Not all all. Apple can make firmware so that it only works on this particular phone, and they can modify future phones to prevent this method altogether.
Re: (Score:2)
But why should the government be able to force them to them to do work for them if they don't want to? Given the short, clichéd and shallow comments you've peppered this thread with I'm inclined to think you're trolling rather than making a serious case for giving the government this kind of power.
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed, and enslaving a third-party is just as bad!
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I am against a technology company being compelled to undermine encryption technology so that the law enforcement can go with their usual scope creep from "just for terrorists", to "just for really bad criminals", to "well, maybe tax evasion", to "ok, how about copyright infringement", and finally "because you aren't allowed to keep secrets from us".
I am a lot less worried about government getting their hands on my data than private companies doing the same. Companies are only accountable to their owners, the shareholders, and we have seen often enough how little they care about things like privacy, ethics and even legality, as long as there's a profit to be made. Democratic governments are, at least in principle, accountable to the people. I am sure the huge distrust Americans have in their governments has a lot to do with big business having been abl
Re:Just a stunt ... (Score:5, Insightful)
No, what he's saying is closer to being against the builder of the house being forced by the government (by the end of a pen or rifle) to build a special machine that will dig under the house (or any house afterward) to install an access hatch in the basement because they cannot open the front door when executing that warrant.
Are you stating you would be happier if the government operated like something a little closer to that of East Germany in 1960's and 70's? Because that's where we're heading. People afraid to criticize the government. Citizens reporting each other behavior deemed "unpatriotic". Companies, literally forced to do things they don't want to do, that aren't in their best interest to do, and aren't in the best interest of the citizens to do; because terror.
Haven't religious radicals done enough to undermine our freedom and way of life? Are we really such cowards? The last line of our national anthem: "O'er the land of the free, and home of the brave". When are we going to start behaving like that again?
Re: (Score:3)
There's a world of difference between handing over information that you have in your profession upon receipt of a warrant or subpoena and being conscripted to actively do the government's dirty work for them. They're asking for Apple to build them a custom OS that does not presently exist. That goes far beyond "reasonable search and seizure." We're talking press gangs and forced labor here. And I believe we've fought a couple of wars and have an amendment on that issue.
Re: (Score:2)
Your comparison would only make sense if the warrant included disassembly and confiscation of all contents of the house and the structure of the house itself, including coercing the builder of the house to tell the authorities how to disassemble it.
Not at all. In this case, the FBI wants to try to crack the phone by repeatedly entering passcodes without the phone bricking itself. No disassembly, confiscation or disassembly is required.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
refusal to cooperate (Score:5, Insightful)
Apple's refusal to cooperate with a legitimate law enforcement investigation to unlock a phone used by terrorists puts Apple on the side of terrorists instead of on the side of public safety
Apple isn't refusing to cooperate. They are filing an appeal to a novel ruling. There is a difference.
Exactly (Score:5, Informative)
Apple DOES cooperate, when they are able to do things like pull data out of iCloud backups.
What they are being asked to do is write a custom OS for free. To fix a mistake the FBI made.
Re: (Score:2)
What they are being asked to do is write a custom OS for free.
So the problem is they have to spend a few hours, and they're not getting compensation ? It's all about money ?
Re: (Score:2)
Right because the company that provides the forensic tools used by law enforcement on cell phones would probably gladly help them with that for a hefty fee and a long term contract.
You missed the most important point (Score:2)
What they are being asked to do is write a custom OS for free. To fix a mistake the FBI made.
Which will be used repeatedly in the future on other phones in other cases regardless of the legality of doing so.
Re: (Score:2)
Which will be used repeatedly in the future on other phones in other cases regardless of the legality of doing so.
It would be a simple matter for Apple to write the patched OS so that it only works on one particular phone.
They'll be asked again. (Score:2)
It would be a simple matter for Apple to write the patched OS so that it only works on one particular phone.
If they do it once they will be asked to do it again. There is no putting the toothpaste back in the tube.
Re: (Score:2)
If they do it once they will be asked to do it again. There is no putting the toothpaste back in the tube.
But then they would have a chance to verify and appeal the court order every time, and thus alleviating your concerns that it would happen "regardless of the legality of doing so".
Re: (Score:2)
But the problem is the FBI could use that fix on any phone. So in essence Apple is saying they won't help them because their phones are inherently insecure.
But Apple controls the iOS cryptographic key signing servers which say what firmware versions can be installed on what devices. They have to be signed before the phone accepts that firmware period. Same reason that nobody but Apple can install an older no loner signed version of the OS on an iPhone. It used to be susceptible to a replay attack, but Apple added a nonce a few years ago to stop that too.
The special firmware Apple made with unlimited passcode attempts could only be signed for that specific d
Re: (Score:2)
Apple's refusal to cooperate with a legitimate law enforcement investigation to unlock a phone used by terrorists puts Apple on the side of terrorists instead of on the side of public safety
Apple isn't refusing to cooperate. They are filing an appeal to a novel ruling. There is a difference.
Actually, from what I've been reading, the actual ruling hasn't been officially entered by the judge, only a draft of what the judge is planning to order at the hearing on March 22 has been released so everybody can be ready to officially address the judge's order during the hearing.
Soooo, officially Apple hasn't refused to do anything yet because the judge hasn't officially ordered it...
you know what could have prevented this? (Score:2, Interesting)
Managing your fucking iPhones! What dipshit organization deploys iPhones that they do not have absolute control over?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
You would be surprised. The concept of Mobile Device Management is well known within large enterprise, but largely unknown outside of that. And here's why:
1. Government passes laws that require publicly traded companies to audit and positively manage access control and data safety (Sarbanes-Oxley, HIPAA, etc.) or the companies have institutional requirements for the same or beyond (PCI compliance).
2. Other companies make products that will allow large enterprises to comply with these rules and regulatio
They did (Score:2)
They did manage them. The FBI told them to reset the account password, which locked the FBI out of the phone. Convenient, really, almost like they did that on purpose.
Well that makes sense... (Score:2)
The police department definitely wants to be using phones that can be tapped.
Use MDM (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
You would think so, but I'll bet there are amazingly few organizations that have made that connection.
opposite reaction (Score:4, Insightful)
This is exactly how fascism rises up as a 'peoples' movement via propaganda and hysteria. The Trump phenomenon operates on the same principles. It works today as well as it did 90 years ago. It is a fatal flaw of majority rule.
Have they the authority? (Score:2)
I'd imagine that public procument in the US, even if all the suppliers were also US companies, would likely have to be done on a non-discriminatory basis or the procuring body would run afoul either of competition laws or of l
Re: (Score:3)
Sort of.
The way to get around it is to define the parameters tight enough to get what you want. For instance, adding this language: "The device shall feature a 4.3" AMOLED display. It shall be compatible with all CDMA networks, 802.11 a, b, g and n, and LTE bands 25, 26 and 41. It shall use the Android operating system and support one Micro-SDcard. It shall require a SIM for LTE connectivity, but not for CDMA connectivity." will pretty much knock things back to one specific version of one specific devic
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, but that doesn't play with the publicity stunt that a "tough on crime" district attorney wants to parlay into a seat in Congress, or a US Attorney seat, or a judgeship somewhere, etc.
Putting out a press release saying you are doing a thing, and then six months later not doing that thing because the story has faded is how county DAs become mayors, mayors become congressmen, congressmen become governors, etc.
Security Theater (Score:4, Insightful)
the FBI has what it needs to unlock this phone any time it wants.
It just wants to make a big deal out of it to justify legislation. [thefreetho...roject.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Wow, anonymous left-wing piece using stats that don't exclude suicides and skew the numbers with a weird number of years. Yeah!
To answer the question at the top of the article BTW:
Both.
Oh boy! MEDIA GRANDSTANDING! (Score:2)
Never mind that while it may, technically, be a legal request at this point, it's STILL legal for Apple to challenge this in court.
No! Let's pander to the media!
Asshats.
Hear that bad guys? (Score:2)
Morons make themselves easier to attack. Please remember this when choosing your next targets...
Good for us (Score:2)
This dispute is the best that could have happened to us. In a couple of months, iPhones will be unhackable, Apple will make sure that they will never ever be in this situation again.
This is a GOOD thing! (Score:2)
This is a GOOD thing! ...because we wouldn't want to let an Arizona County Attorney off the hook for any crimes they might commit in the future just because they dug deep into their wallet in order to afford a smartphone from a company that respects people's right to privacy.
Translation (Score:2)
Apple's refusal to cooperate with a legitimate law enforcement investigation to unlock a phone used by terrorists puts Apple on the side of terrorists instead of on the side of public safety
Translation: "Apple isn't letting us run roughshod over civil rights in the efficient manner to which we are accustomed so we're going to throw a juvenile fit instead of having an adult discussion about a complicated problem."
Law enforcement officers with an overdeveloped sense of entitlement and a lack of regard for civil rights are a very scary thing.
Quote (Score:2)
According to the article on Ars, the prosecutor had this to say:
"If the potential for unauthorized access to an encryption key is truly motivating Apple’s unwillingness to assist in downloading information from specific iPhones, then let’s define the problem in those terms and work on that concern"
If only he really meant that.
http://arstechnica.com/tech-po... [arstechnica.com]
Looks like somebody (Score:3)
Trigger an Opposite Reaction? (Score:2)
The OP says "I suspect Apple's public refusal to decrypt, and Tim Cook's strong words in favor of user privacy, have probably triggered an opposite reaction among many would-be phone buyers"
Based on what exactly? Why do you suspect this? Your opinion? Gut feeling? unsubstantiated rumors? Tea Leaves? Fox news?
Re: (Score:2)
Oh come now. Of the millions of would-be phone buyers, you do NOT "suspect" that "many" of them would welcome Apple's reaction? That's actually a statistical certainty, given that there are many millions of such people. Your false intellectual objection is showing.
Never heard of MDM? (Score:2)
wha? (Score:2)
If apple can write software to decrypt... (Score:2)
Apple has never said that its impossible for the data to be revealed, they have just said that they refuse to assist the FBI.
But if its possible to write software to decrypt the phone's data, then its not actually cryptographically secured - or at least the key is available. In any case, if apple doesn't do this task for the FBI, NSA/CIA will do it at greater cost.
Arizona Puke (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If Apple develops software to crack the encryption you put everyone at risk and you also damage Apple's ability top do business
Then you'll be relieved to hear that this is not what this case is about.
Hey Arizona ever hear of an MDM (Mobile Dev Man)? (Score:4, Insightful)
If you buy iPhones/iPads for employees and don't use an MDM (Mobile Device Manager), then you have lost control on the device, period. All of this insanity could be a if San Bernadino would have managed their employee devices. [cbsnews.com]
This is a giant tempest in a teapot. The FBI was sloppy and locked the phone, even though they deny the screwup, judge for yourself. [recode.net]
ATTENTION: If you issue iPhones or Android to employees setup an MDM!
Re: (Score:2)
And people wonder why the police and the government is so hated and untrusted by the citizens...
Re: (Score:3)
There's a reason Trump is winning every state in the primaries....
Re: (Score:2)
More than that, using the enshrined appeals process to make sure that you are being correctly compelled by a PRELIMINARY order means you are on the side of the terrorists.
It's not even an actual court order yet - that won't get issued until after the 26 February deadline (tomorrow) for Apple to file a motion that this would be unreasonably burdensome, which Apple will most certainly do. Then there will be a hearing on 22 March where the real decision from the Federal Magistrate will come down, and that wil
Re: (Score:2)
And depending on what effect the coming new management at the top does or does not have.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Ah, good ole Maricopa County. The home of jurisprudence by publicity stunt.
Isn't that in the neighborhood of that Sheriff that uses the pink underwear and tents for his county jail?
Re: (Score:2)
even without proper warrants
Source, or STFU.
Re: (Score:2)
Odd that the word 'Apple' isn't in your source.
Re: (Score:2)
No, you prove your claim.
Otherwise, I'm calling bullshit.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't care what their motivations are. Their motivations have brought them to the correct side of the issue, regardless.
This is an insanely bad precedent that the FBI is trying to set. They probably don't even give a shit what's on the phone - they want the body of legal opinion that they can use in the future.
I hope Apple takes this thing all the way to the Supreme Court.
Re: (Score:2)
Most of us have the same conflicting thoughts about any decision. Expecting a corporation's motives to be somehow "pure" or "rational" presupposes a regularity of mind that does not exist, neither in man nor in the organizations he makes.
Most times a stand is not principled. It usually happens because it is the best course of action someone can think of at the moment.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes. And he's been out of the news lately. So pat him on the head with a, "There, that's a nice little sheriff." And maybe he'll go away for a while.