[vectorjohn]

Well why don't we wait for that to be suggested to start getting outraged. In the case at hand, I don't believe Apple for a second that they would be decreasing the security for any other phone by complying with the FBI request. They're lying or exaggerating as far as I can tell.

[zaroth]

It's a very bad idea to wait until after the precedent is set to try to ensure that this does not become routine. It's crucial to have the debate now, before the precedent is set, because of the way the US legal system works. If you can establish that under the AWA Apple must comply with this request for a backdoor, then future attempts to compel the creation of additional backdoors on any electronic device (think "Internet of Things") are approved as a matter of course.

While you might believe that Apple is capable of keeping the backdoor from being used unlawfully (although, why would you when they clearly failed to secure the 5c from this attack in the first place!) how about every other electronics manufacturer in the world?

[vectorjohn]

> It's a very bad idea to wait until after the precedent is set to try to ensure that this does not become routine.

Well then why don't we start making this case about abortion rights precedent, for how applicable it is? This has nothing to do with the general practice of making devices backdoorable in general. It is a straight forward search of a device with a warrant.

Apple failed to secure the 5c, but they don't have to fail to secure others. I have every reason to believe they could have made the phone refuse to install updates without a user password, which would make this backdoor impossible.

[dragonwriter]

> It is a straight forward search of a device with a warrant.

No, its not.

If it were a straightforward search of a device with a warrant, then -- the FBI having the device and the warrant -- no third party would have to be compelled to be involved.

That they are trying to compel Apple to write special software to enable what the FBI wants very clearly demonstrates that it is nothing like a straightforward search of a device with a warrant.

[vectorjohn]

Hmm, that seems untrue. Is this the first case where an agency had to get some assistance from a third party to execute a warrant? Like, getting access to a storage unit, or getting access to documents? In the case of a locked door, don't you think it would be reasonable to require a landlord or such to unlock the door if they could? Especially if the walls were literally impenetrable.

I don't know. It seems like that is the way the law works now. If it's not what we want, maybe that should be the discussion. But this doesn't seem fundamentally different than any other normal search order. Superficially different, sure. Instead of simply unlocking a door, it's more like Apple has the blueprints for how to make a key and they're being asked to do so. Apple is implying (but strangely, not explicitly saying) that they can't do that without harming security for other people. I don't believe it, or they should come out and say that.

And lastly, I think it's splitting hairs to complain that they're being asked to write special software rather than just hand over documents or unlock a door. To a lay person that may seem like an over burden, but for SMEs it should be pretty easy. If it isn't easy, again, that should be what Apple says, but they haven't. Because it's embarrassing for them.

The position Apple should be in, is to say "we cannot comply with this request". That would be great. But they can, pretty easily I would guess, so they're beating around the bush instead.