Community Reacts to Apple vs FBI Story

[russ_watters]

As it happens, Apple made a flawed tool, one they can still bypass...

Even that is too generous.

This isn't a bug, it's a feature. Apple has already purposely created a back door into the iPhone, for their own use, with tools they already posess and they are denying access to the FBI in contradiction of a legal search warrant.

Apple has always been this way because of their long-time corporate philosophy of of supremacy over their customers. The "1984" Super Bowl commercial was a trick: it was always Apple, not IBM/Microsoft who was Big Brother, tightly controlling the user experience in all of their products. The particular feature we're discussing - the ability to update the users' software without their knowledge/consent - was just, for the first time, added to a Microsoft operating system (Windows 10), touching-off a minor firestorm. Windows users have always been accustomed to more direct access to the function of the operating system and MS asking permission to make alterations of it.

If this was Enron/Arthur Andersen, we wouldn't be having this discussion. AA destroyed Enron documents in order to evade/help Enron evade a legal search warrant and was convicted of felony obstruction of justice for it.

We've talked about potential slippery slopes with the FBI: what about Apple's slippery slope? The FBI is constrained from going down a slippery slope by the law, but Apple - thus far - is constrained only by their imagination. People are saying that the FBI is moving down a slippery slope, but Apple is building the slope and by necessity, the government is following them down it. I think this case may bear-out that Apple is not entitled to just go as far as they want.

 

[russ_watters]

Fact check: When was Julian Assange ever "in the NSA"?

It was a lazy wording. I should have said "in/of". Their actions though are most ironic because they are the ones who made real the danger they said the NSA was creating! It's like proving someone's house is violating the fire code by lighting it on fire. The owners of the house may have been breaking the law, but arson is a much worse crime.

Further, why should foreign journalists who are neither US Citizens nor residing nor even present in the USA, be subject to the laws of the USA?

Really? You do know there are international laws and treaties, right? Espionage is a crime that doesn't respect international borders.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/11/29/AR2010112905973.html

Should the US hand it's journalists over to foreign countries in cases where those foreign countries claim our citizens have broken their laws in cases where our citizens were never even in the foreign country when the laws were purportedly broken?

I'd be willing to entertain the question if it ever comes up. But fortunately for us, that question isn't on the table as a hypothetical for an Assange, much less an American: Assange isn't in his home country.

 

[jack476]

Isn't the right to use software encryption covered by the Second Amendment or something? I'm sure I read somewhere that encryption is technically a "weapon" and therefore protected by the right to bear arms.

 

[Dr. Courtney]

Isn't the right to use software encryption covered by the Second Amendment or something? I'm sure I read somewhere that encryption is technically a "weapon" and therefore protected by the right to bear arms.

You get the credit for the most interesting viewpoint!

That is an interesting angle to explore, but I think it is more directly covered by the right to privacy.

See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_privacy

 

[Vanadium 50]

This isn't a bug, it's a feature. Apple has already purposely created a back door into the iPhone, for their own use, with tools they already posess and they are denying access to the FBI in contradiction of a legal search warrant.

I had not heard this. Where can I read this?

 

[jack476]

You get the credit for the most interesting viewpoint!

That is an interesting angle to explore, but I think it is more directly covered by the right to privacy.

See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_privacy

I just looked it up. I guess encryption software is technically a "munition" rather than a weapon (not sure what the distinction is) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Export_of_cryptography_from_the_United_States

But either way, the right to self-defense from things like identity theft and computer viruses still factors in along with right to privacy.

 

[Vanadium 50]

I'm sure I read somewhere that encryption is technically a "weapon" and therefore protected by the right to bear arms.

Even if that were the case (IANAL, but it sounds improbable) the owner of the phone has given permission.

 

[Astronuc]

San Bernardino County tweets it reset terrorist's iCloud password with FBI
http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_29543811/san-bernardino-county-tweets-it-reset-terrorists-icloud

However - Apple says investigators ruined best way to access terrorist data

"A backup feature might have provided the FBI with a way to access data from the iPhone of a San Bernardino terrorist. But a change to the Apple iCloud password foiled that idea."

http://www.cnet.com/news/apple-says...-most-promising-way-to-access-terrorist-data/

According to senior Apple executives on Friday, the FBI might have been able to obtain data from an iPhone 5C belonging to Syed Farook, one of the San Bernardino terrorists, by connecting it to a familiar Wi-Fi network and having it create a new backup on Apple's iCloud service.

The idea was foiled, the executives say, because the password to the terrorist's iCloud account was reset shortly after the FBI took possession of the phone. That meant iCloud and the iPhone couldn't recognize each other, the executives said.
. . . .

https://gma.yahoo.com/san-bernardino-shooters-apple-id-passcode-changed-while-234003785--abc-news-topstories.html#

 

[anorlunda]

Clarify your second sentence for me. You are saying there are reports that attorneys General and "local cops" are waiting in line behind the FBI to issue orders to Apple to unlock other cell phones? And that foreign governments would be able to do this as well? What's the source of such reports?

My source was the Washington Post. Sorry, no link. But here are some, similar articles, the 2nd us from Australia.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...says-iphone-unlock-order-carries-global-peril
http://www.huffingtonpost.com.au/2016/02/17/apple-san-bernardino-phone_n_9259410.html

Google news has 8148 hits on apple+"attorney general" today.

 

[anorlunda]

Apple has already purposely created a back door into the iPhone, for their own use, with tools they already posess and they are denying access to the FBI in contradiction of a legal search warrant.

Source please

 

[mheslep]

Apple has already purposely created a back door into the iPhone, for their own use, with tools they already posess and they are denying access to the FBI in contradiction of a legal search warrant.

I believe that statement is out of date, and that since the discovery some years ago that Apple had back doors being used by governments, Apple changed their security, making it inaccessible to them too. Google followed suit with Android platforms.

 

[russ_watters]

Isn't the right to use software encryption covered by the Second Amendment or something? I'm sure I read somewhere that encryption is technically a "weapon" and therefore protected by the right to bear arms.

I can honestly say I have never heard that logic before. I don't agree with it, but even if it were true that it is a weapon, it wouldn't automatically be legal under the 2nd amendment. As I'm sure you are aware, lots of weapons are not legal for civilians to own/use - particularly when used against the government!

 

[russ_watters]

I had not heard this. Where can I read this?

Source please

It's described in the text of the Wired article Greg posted:

Apple specifically altered its software in 2014 to ensure that it would not be able to unlock customer phones and decrypt any of the most important data on them; but it turns out it overlooked a loophole in doing this that the government is now trying to exploit...

To do this, it wants Apple to create a special version of its operating system, a crippled version of the firmware that essentially eliminates the bruteforcing protections, and install it on the San Bernardino phone.

The loophole is the fact that Apple still retains the ability to run crippled firmware on a device like this without requiring the user to approve it, the way software updates usually work. If this required user approval, Apple would not be able to do what the government is requesting. [emphasis added]

Wired refers to it as a "loophole" that they "overlooked" and I describe it as a long established "feature", but either way, what it is is the ability to update the user's software (operating system) without their permission.

It's kind of funny actually: Apple has created uncrackable security, while retaining the ability to turn it off!

 

[russ_watters]

I believe that statement is out of date, and that since the discovery some years ago that Apple had back doors being used by governments, Apple changed their security, making it inaccessible to them too. Google followed suit with Android platforms.

If that were true, we wouldn't be having this conversation. We're having this conversation because the contents of the phone are accessible to Apple and the FBI has obtained a court order requiring Apple to essentially unlock the door for the FBI to open it.

 

[russ_watters]

Device manufacturers will be motivated to outsource security to foreign entities not subject to usa jurisdiction.

That's certainly a possibility, as is the banning of the sale of such products in the USA.

 

[Astronuc]

Common software would have let FBI unlock shooter's iPhone
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/common-software-let-fbi-unlock-160352000.html

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The county government that owned the iPhone in a high-profile legal battle between Apple Inc. and the Justice Department paid for but never installed a feature that would have allowed the FBI to easily and immediately unlock the phone as part of the terrorism investigation into the shootings that killed 14 people in San Bernardino, California.

If the technology, known as mobile device management, had been installed, San Bernardino officials would have been able to remotely unlock the iPhone for the FBI without the theatrics of a court battle that is now pitting digital privacy rights against national security concerns.

Certainly continues to get interesting.

https://gma.yahoo.com/apple-cant-surrender-civil-liberties-fight-over-shooters-184504995.html
Ted Olson, a former U.S. Solicitor General now representing Apple, defended the company’s decision to refuse to comply with the FBI’s request to unlock an iPhone left behind by one of the shooters in the San Bernardino terror attack.

 

[anorlunda]

It's described in the text of the Wired article Greg posted:

I think the passage that you're talking about is this.

The loophole is the fact that Apple still retains the ability to run crippled firmware on a device like this without requiring the user to approve it, the way software updates usually work. If this required user approval, Apple would not be able to do what the government is requesting.

2/22/
Unless Apple has confirmed that, or unless someone publishes the exploit, that is unsupported speculation.

That's certainly a possibility, as is the banning of the sale of such products in the USA.

That's brilliant Russ. Then the USA can be the only country in the world with no cell phones.

The following illustrates how the USA is promoting encryption all over the world except USA.

The tools it recommended - ChatSecure and Cryptocat - are popular throught the Middle East making them easily available to extremists from that part of the world. They were also developed largely with money from the US government.
...
Some federal agencies have funded the development of nearly unbreakable encryption software, while others, especially in intelligence and law enforcement, fume over their inability to read protected messages.
..,
The U.S. Justice Department has sought a court order to force Apple ... Meanwhile, at least five federal agencies are developing similar encryption tools, with the aim of helping military officers and pro-democracy advocates, avoid detection overseas.

Tor was also designed by US money, and it is supported by the US government overseas (but not at home).

 

[Borg]

Then the USA can be the only country in the world with no cell phones.

Two things wrong with that conclusion. Just because one version of a product isn't allowed, doesn't mean that no products are allowed. And, even if the government declared all non-decryptable Apple phones illegal in the US, Apple would quickly build a phone that complied with the rules. The alternative would be to lose market share in one of the largest markets. I don't think that their so-called principles extend far enough for that.

 

[anorlunda]

Common software would have let FBI unlock shooter's iPhone
...
mobile device management,

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...-makes-money-from-it/?wpmm=1&wpisrc=nl_volokh

MDM is not a back door, because setting up MDM on a password-protected phone requires knowledge of the phone's password. If MDM could be set up without the phone's password, a hacker or thief could access any password-protected phone simply by setting up MDM.

Once MDM is set up, it can be used only by presenting a specific set of secret credentials (essentially a second password held by the organization that owns the phone). That is the key difference between MDM and a back door: a back door allows third parties to access the phone without permission of the owner/user, while MDM is set up by the owner and can thereafter be used only by the owner.

MDM allows corporations to do several things to phones in their control. None of those things includes arbitrary data access. Here's why:

The relevant functionality you’re noticing is that MDM allows a controller of an MDM phone to push applications to that phone, to remove and update *those same applications*, and (in some cases) to push and retrieve data *from those same applications*. That distinction is not trivial: unlike Android phones, iOS gives each application its own sandboxed, encrypted area to write data in. Applications cannot write outside that zone. Thus, no matter how excited a corporation gets, they can’t use this functionality to intercept data, and would only at best be able to retrieve data created with one of the applications they control. This is thus not a backdoor for your purposes, no matter how malicious the company running MDM is—and the security that powers this design is the same that underpins *all* iOS app store apps. It’s why on iOS (unlike Android) arbitrary third-party apps can't read your Facebook friends without your permission.

(There is a sharing mechanism built in as well—that’s how you can, e.g., share photos—but this is done via a “push” mechanism: the app with the data has to basically put it in the mailbox of the application that wants it. If the application with the data is a personal app, not an MDM one, then MDM still won’t help.)

 

[russ_watters]

Unless Apple has confirmed that, or unless someone publishes the exploit, that is unsupported speculation.

Speculation by whom? The FBI and Wired? I guess I'm going to trust that they've done some homework, but also you should put some logic into it: if Apple were incapable of doing what the FBI requested, there'd be no reason/need to fight the request it in court! Apple discusses in detail what the FBI has asked them to do in their response letter and makes no indication that what is being asked of them is impossible.

That's brilliant Russ. Then the USA can be the only country in the world with no cell phones.

C'mon, you are better than that. This is a normal thing that applies all the time. All products of all kinds are required to comply with local laws in all countries or risk being prohibited from sale. If you don't believe me, go try to buy a VW clean diesel.

 

[anorlunda]

That's certainly a possibility, as is the banning of the sale of such products in the USA.

Russ and Borg are certainly entitled to their opinions, but so am I. I think that it is highly unlikely that the US Congress would have the courage to pass a law that even hinted that hoards of liberal Democrats might be cut off from their beloved Apple products. Especially in an election year, Apple could bluff and the government would fold its hand, IMO. Do you think that Congress has been courageous in recent years? Even an executive order would need more courage than Obama has shown on anything so far.

 

[russ_watters]

Russ and Borg are certainly entitled to their opinions, but so am I. I think that it is highly unlikely that the US Congress would have the courage to pass a law that even hinted that hoards of liberal Democrats might be cut off from their beloved Apple products. Especially in an election year, Apple could bluff and the government would fold its hand, IMO. Do you think that Congress has been courageous in recent years? Even an executive order would need more courage than Obama has shown on anything so far.

Who said who to what, now? I don't know where any of that came from - it certainly has little or nothing to do with anything I or Borg said. I was responding to your absurd quip that the USA could become a country without cell phones and then you seemed to back up a step. The above isn't/hasn't been/never was on the table and certainly no one here suggested it until you mentioned it.

I think you need to slow down and catch your breath.

 

[anorlunda]

Breaking from the above spat; here's another view with some points not mentioned hereto.

http://america.aljazeera.com/opinio...-is-a-big-farce-to-get-inside-your-phone.html

The author argues:

The government’s goal in this case has little to do with unlocking a single iPhone, and everything to do with establishing a legal precedent that guarantees them the ability to achieve this access on any device.

Here are some of the arguments he uses to make his case.

the FBI’s assertion that the phone contains valuable evidence is at odds with the known facts of the case. The court order notes that Farook destroyed several other phones to hide evidence prior to the attack. It’s extremely doubtful he’d neglect to destroy the remaining phone if it had any evidence on it. Another reason to be skeptical: The device was actually owned by Farook’s employer, the San Bernardino county health department. Given the lengths he went to destroy evidence, it’s highly unlikely Farook would plan attacks using a company device, since it would be reasonable to assume his employer might be monitoring it. The phone was discovered by agents with the “Find My iPhone” feature turned on — a very strange setting to have activated on a device being used to coordinate terrorist plots.
...
Even more suspicious is how the FBI reacted when finding the phone. According to court documents, they seized the device while it was still on, but allowed the battery to drain. This is baffling because it would have been far easier for investigators to try and access the phone’s contents if they had simply kept it powered and turned on. (The device is fully locked with encryption and tamper-prevention measures when turned off)

The government’s own descriptions of the information it seeks to obtain by forcing Apple to help unlock the phone are also highly questionable. This crucial information includes “who Farook and Malik may have communicated with to plan and carry out the [San Bernardino] shootings, where Farook and Malik may have traveled to and from before and after the incident, and other pertinent information that would provide more information about their and others’ involvement in the deadly shooting.”

All of this information could almost certainly be obtained through other, far more constitutionally sound means. “Who Farook and Malik may have communicated with” could be easily determined by issuing a subpoena to their cell phone, email and Internet service providers; those companies all retain customers’ calling records
...
The same point applies to location information, which is constantly gathered by phone companies as customers’ cellphones move about and connect to their towers. This too would be obtainable without a warrant.

 

[russ_watters]

...here's another view with some points not mentioned hereto.

http://america.aljazeera.com/opinio...-is-a-big-farce-to-get-inside-your-phone.html

The author argues:

Here are some of the arguments he uses to make his case.

Let's assume for the time being that all of that speculation about the FBI's "real" motive is true (that the FBI lied in a legal motion and follow-up public discussion):
1. So what?
2. Can the current course of action achieve what it is claimed they want? (note we have already discussed that...)

 

[Psinter]

Legendary iPhone hacker weighs in on Apple’s war with the FBI
https://www.yahoo.com/tech/legendary-iphone-hacker-weighs-apple-war-fbi-181729112.html

Thank you very much for that link Astronuc. Finally someone who understands. It is a thuggish tactic, a trap like it says in the link and a very clever one.

The[/PLAIN] government also said the judge's ruling was restricted to a single iPhone, and rejected Cook's argument that the order requires Apple to create a "back door" to all its iPhones. "It does not provide 'hackers and criminals' access to iPhones," said the filing, "it does not require Apple to 'hack [its] own users' or to 'decrypt' its own phones; it does not give the government 'the power to reach into anyone's device' without a warrant or a court authorization; and it does not compromise the security of personal information."

Heh. Like clearly stated in the link Astronuc posted, in courts, when prosecutors or defenses want to do something, they base themselves on whether it was done in the past or not. If this is done, in the future other prosecutors will use this case as basis to justify that they can do it. Basic law. It is the first thing books about law have in them. Exercises for the students in the form of cases where other cases have been used as example to boost and/or justify prosecutors and/or defenses arguments/motions.

Plus, justified by law or not, it is compromising security on personal information. Here's the thing (an example): When they couldn't access it, it was secure. When they could access it by force, it was not secure. It was accessed by force, therefore compromised. What security of personal information will you have when warrants begin being issued left and right all over the place because they claim that since it was done once, why not do it again? Let me give you my answer: You won't have any.

 

[gleem]

Can John McAfee of Intel Security Group save http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/166513-John-McAfee-Says-He-Will-Hack-the-San-Bernardino-Phone-to-Save-America-From-Itself? He said He would eat his shoe an national TV if His team cannot break into Syed Farook"s iPhone in three weeks.

 

[Psinter]

I'm very interested to hear what the PF community thinks of this story

Sorry for double posting, but I'm curious, some have given their thinking, but what is OP opinion on the story?

 

[russ_watters]

Thank you very much for that link Astronuc. Finally someone who understands. It is a thuggish tactic, a trap like it says in the link and a very clever one.

Heh. Like clearly stated in the link Astronuc posted, in courts, when prosecutors or defenses want to do something, they base themselves on whether it was done in the past or not. If this is done, in the future other prosecutors will use this case as basis to justify that they can do it. Basic law. It is the first thing books about law have in them. Exercises for the students in the form of cases where other cases have been used as example to boost and/or justify prosecutors and/or defenses arguments/motions.

Since Apple has in the past complied with dozens of similar legal search orders and the [poorly implemented or not] capability of this phone is new, it is Apple who is trying to set the precedent, not the FBI: Apple is trying to set the precedent that it no longer has to comply with legal search orders.

What security of personal information will you have when warrants begin being issued left and right all over the place because they claim that since it was done once, why not do it again? Let me give you my answer: You won't have any.

Correction: you don't have any. Present tense. There is nothing you have that the FBI/police are not entitled to search if they get a warrant. Apple is trying to change that. I find that prospect ominous.

 

[Dr. Courtney]

Correction: you don't have any. Present tense. There is nothing you have that the FBI/police are not entitled to search if they get a warrant. Apple is trying to change that. I find that prospect ominous.

Apple is not trying to change that. They are just saying that they don't want to be forced to help.

Refusing to help is not the same as hindering the process if law enforcement can figure out how to conduct the search independently.

The government wants to go beyond being entitled to search with a warrant. They want to be able to compel third parties to assist in such searches. Congress has refused to pass a law forcing tech companies to provide means for searches to be facilitated. Now the FBI wants to use court orders to accomplish the same end, even though Congress was asked to pass a law, and they did not.

Why not grant John McAfee the same presumption of innocence and good faith and let him crack the phone? Why force one party to crack the phone against their will when another party is offering to do it for free?

 

[Psinter]

@russ_watters - Thanks for the corrections. It is present tense. I got it wrong.

I find that prospect ominous.

What prospect? Do you mean Apple's prospect? If it's that, I don't find it ominous. What I find ominous is their reaction to Apple's decision to not concede them what they ask for. This was fine, but then the way they filed this motion... It leaves much to be desired from them. Their reaction and wordings are... I don't know how to say it, probably dictatorial is the word, but I'm not sure if it is the correct way to express it.

 

[russ_watters]

Apple is not trying to change that. They are just saying that they don't want to be forced to help.

Refusing to help is not the same as hindering the process if law enforcement can figure out how to conduct the search independently.

Right, those are two separate issues, both of which represent changes Apple is trying to initiate:
1. They are trying to create technology to help people avoid legal search warrants.
2. The technology they created for #1 has a loophole that the FBI wants help exploiting. They've helped in the past, but don't want to help anymore.

The government wants to go beyond being entitled to search with a warrant. They want to be able to compel third parties to assist in such searches.

Yes, 3rd parties are required to assist, as Apple has always done in the past (the FBI discusses this in their new request for an order to compel compliance, linked by Psinter). Apple wants to change that.

Congress has refused to pass a law forcing tech companies to provide means for searches to be facilitated. Now the FBI wants to use court orders to accomplish the same end, even though Congress was asked to pass a law, and they did not.

Fortunately, this phone still has such a means. You're reversing the cart and the horse here. Neither the FBI nor Apple would be able to crack the phone if Apple had done what it promised its customers it had done. That couldn't be changed with a court order, only a law. Because Apple didn't do it, they are still subject to compliance with the warrant.

Why not grant John McAfee the same presumption of innocence and good faith and let him crack the phone? Why force one party to crack the phone against their will when another party is offering to do it for free?

I've already answered that: John McAfee is a 3rd party business owner with financial interest that may be contrary to Apple's. And, presumption of innocence? You don't get presumption of innocence in a security check.

I find this suggestion by you really strange.

 

[russ_watters]

What prospect? Do you mean Apple's prospect?

I find the prospect of completely uncrackable phones ominous just like I find Bitcoin ominous. I find it to be an unnecessary enabler of crime/protection for criminals.

If it's that, I don't find it ominous. What I find ominous is their reaction to Apple's decision to not concede them what they ask for. This was fine, but then the way they filed this motion... It leaves much to be desired from them. Their reaction and wordings are... I don't know how to say it, probably dictatorial is the word, but I'm not sure if it is the correct way to express it.

I don't get it. The second is an additional motion requesting action against Apple for refusing the first, which was a court order. What else is the FBI supposed to do, just let Apple thumb their nose at them?

Yes, an "order" is by definition "dictatorial"!

From the request:

Apple has attempted to design and market its products to allow technology, rather than the law, to control access to data which has been found by this Court to be warranted for an important investigation. Despite its efforts, Apple nonetheless retains the technical ability to comply with the Order, and so should be required to obey it.

At face value, how is that in any way false or unreasonable? Continuing on, it paints a picture that says Apple lied repeatedly in their response letter (which I think we've borne out in this discussion).

Apple is going to need to come up with a better challenge this in court, otherwise I think the next action will include arrest warrants. It isn't entitled to challenge a court order with a PR war alone.

 

[russ_watters]

Then there's this:

The Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act (CALEA) is a United States wiretapping law passed in 1994, during the presidency of Bill Clinton (Pub. L. No. 103-414, 108 Stat. 4279, codified at 47 USC 1001-1010).

CALEA's purpose is to enhance the ability of law enforcement agencies to conduct electronic surveillance by requiring that telecommunications carriers and manufacturers of telecommunications equipment modify and design their equipment, facilities, and services to ensure that they have built-in surveillance capabilities, allowing federal agencies to wiretap any telephone traffic; it has since been extended to cover broadband Internet and VoIP traffic. Some government agencies argue that it covers monitoring communications rather than just tapping specific lines and that not all CALEA-based access requires a warrant.

The original reason for adopting CALEA was the Federal Bureau of Investigation's worry that increasing use of digital telephone exchange switches would make tapping phones at the phone company's central office harder and slower to execute, or in some cases impossible.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communications_Assistance_for_Law_Enforcement_Act

That was linked from here, an 18 month article predicting the current conflict:
http://www.theverge.com/2014/9/18/6...d-signals-whether-police-can-access-your-data

 

[Psinter]

I find the prospect of completely uncrackable phones ominous just like I find Bitcoin ominous. I find it to be an unnecessary enabler of crime.

It is an opinion to which I do not agree and I don't have to be criminal to disagree. I hope you don't think I'm a criminal because I disagree with you.

I don't get it. The second is an additional motion requesting action against Apple for refusing the first, which was a court order. What else is the FBI supposed to do, just let Apple thumb their nose at them?

I could tell you my opinion, but this would definitely be more nice in a face to face conversation. Otherwise I would need to write a whole document explaining my opinion.

Yes, an "order" is by definition "dictatorial"!

Now this is good. I am thankful that you make that clear to me. I really am as I wasn't fully aware of it. It gives me a better understanding.

Curiously enough for me, despite the first one being called an order, it wasn't obliging Apple, however the motion is asking for the court to oblige Apple. Hmmmmmm. *thinking for myself*

 

[russ_watters]

It is an opinion to which I do not agree and I don't have to be criminal to disagree. I hope you don't think I'm a criminal because I disagree with you.

No, of course not. A lot of people disagree with me on privacy vs security. So many that my opinion may be in the minority, though online people tend to be of a certain mindset...

Curiously enough for me, despite the first one being called an order, it wasn't obliging Apple, however the motion is asking for the court to oblige Apple. Hmmmmmm.

That really isn't true. Apple is obliged to follow the order, but the order doesn't itself contain the mechanism for enforcement of itself -- people get the benefit of the doubt that they are going to comply with the order before stronger action is taken to force them to comply. The legal process is cumbersome.